TNAG-2323-FCO40-3367-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-Vietnamese-boat-people-1991 — Page 103

CCPR/C/SR.856 page 2

་་

The meeting was called to order at 3.20 p.m.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT (agenda item 4) (continued)

*

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dependent territories (second periodic report) (CCPR/C/32/Add.14 and 15) (continued)

1. The CHAIRMAN invited the members of the United Kingdom delegation to reply to the questions asked by the members of the Committee concerning section I of the list of issues to be taken up (M/CCPR/88/33), which related to the constitutional and legal framework within which the Covenant was implemented.

2.

Mr. FEARN (United Kingdom) said he had noted that most of the questions asked by the members of the Committee related to the way in which the Covenant was implemented in the dependent territories, particularly Hong Kong, and to the reasons why the Covenant did not have force of law. In that connection, he emphasized that, under article 2, paragraph 2 of the Covenant, States Parties were free to adopt such measures as might be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the Covenant, both in their own territory and in dependent territories. In ratifying the Covenant, moreover, the United Kingdom Government had in fact expressed some reservations, but, through consultations, it had ascertained that each of the territories agreed with its interpretation of the Covenant's provisions, including those on which reservations had been made.

3.

The Covenant was implemented in the territories within the framework of local constitutions, some of which reflected the historical development of the territory concerned and the choices made by its population;

any gaps with regard to the protection of some rights were offset by the application of common law. In that connection, chapter 2 of the Joint Declaration on Hong Kong stated that common law would continue to apply after 1997 and that the legislation previously in force would be retained.

4.

Referring to the question of Letters Patent, he said that they had been used in Hong Kong and Montserrat for historical reasons, although they were the legislative equivalent of an order in council, an instrument that was more widely used.

5. In reply to the questions concerning the future of human rights in Hong Kong after 1997, he said that the drafting of the new Basic Law was the sole responsibility of the Chinese Government. A drafting committee had prepared an initial text, on which Hong Kong's population had been consulted, and a further draft would be published in 1990 on the basis of the opinions expressed during the consultation exercise. It was nevertheless too early to know precisely what the provisions of the Basic Law would be and the United Kingdom Government, for its part, was obliged only to ascertain that it was in keeping with the principles of the Joint Declaration, chapter 13 of which referred to the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the population of Hong Kong. The question whether all international instruments would continue to apply in Hong Kong after 1997 was still being discussed by the Sino-British Liaison Group, although article 38 of the Draft Basic Law provided that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would continue