task of determining whether the special attention of Parliament should be drawn to instruments such as the present Order on the ground that they may be 'ultra vires', it seems prudent to have the amendments to the Act expressly set out in the First Schedule.
3. The Order will, I hope, be made at the Privy Council which will meet on 4 June. I suggest that it should comE into force on 30 June. Although the '21 day rule' which requires an instrument subject to negative procedure to be laid before Parliament 21 days before entry into force does not apply to this Order, the Joint Committee draw special attention to instruments which come into force too soon. The intention is to give every one concerned the opportunity to study an instrument before it comes into force.
4.
Please ask the Hong Kong Government whether Section 4(3) of the Act (see both Schedules) reflects their requirements. This reflects their request in Hong Kong telno 2236 of 12 July 1991, paragraph 5. A different version which retained Section 4(3)(b) and referred to the Post Office Ordinance is set out in the second draft Order sent by the HKG, attached to Ms Coglin's minute of 5 July 1991. I assume this version was overtaken by the telegram. (In fact, the Hong Kong Government have changed their instructions on a number of points, three times in one instance, and this has complicated the drafting of this Order).
5. Please explain to the Hong Kong Government that there is a new de finition of 'international relations'. This is intended to over come the problem that while Hong Kong does not have international relations as such (the United Kingdom is responsible for its international relations) Hong Kong has been entrusted with entering into treaties in a number of fields and it is a member of various international organisations including GATT. The present Hong Kong Government definition is unacceptable because it refers to Hong Kong's international relations with another territory or state or international organisation. The new definition also covers relations between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong which, it would seem, should be covered and have not been covered up to now.
6. I continue to consider that the Hong Kong Government's definition of 'international organisation' in Section 13(1) is capable of including an organisation of which only territories are members. The relevant part of the de finition reads 'An organisation of which only states or territories are members
There are no organisations of which only territories are members. I have amended the definition and made a consequential change to Section 13(2) to make it clear that the de finition includes entities of
AE1ANW
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.