HKC 175/1
FROM:
Miss S Brooks
Legal Counsellor
DATE:
2 March 1992
CC:
см
Mr Riordan, SØD Mr Tomnay, NTCD
13)
Teleg. E issue
16/3.
+
Mr Bunten
HKD
CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS AGAINST THE SAFETY OF MARITIME NAVIGATION AND ITS PROTOCOL
1.
It appears that the Chinese do not like the British proposal made in the context of the International Rights and Obligations Sub-Group that Hong Kong should be 'a competent authority' for the purposes of the Maritime Terrorism Convention. Accordingly the British side modified its proposal by suggesting that Hong Kong instead should be 'an appropriate authority'.
2.
I understand from Mr Riordan, Security Co-ordination Department, that the Convention was ratified on behalf of the UK only on 3 May 1991. Hong Kong cannot, of course, be included in the UK's ratification, because the UK has already ratified this Convention. It appears that the UK did not make any declaration in respect of the UK as to what was a competent authority under Article 10 of the Convention.
3. The Convention and its Protocol can be applied to Hong Kong when the point about 'appropriate authority' is sorted out.
I do not think the suggestion that Hong Kong should be identified as 'an appropriate authority' is a good one. This is not the language of the Convention. An alternative might be to state that 'the authority for the purposes of Article 10' in respect of Hong Kong is Hong Kong itself cannot be identified as an 'appropriate authority'; the relevant part of the Hong Kong Government would have to be named as the authority. If the Hong Kong Government consider that there are any other Articles apart from Article 10 which needed to be included, they could be added to my wording for the suggested alternative.
4. Another, less good solution would be for no declaration to be made at all when this Convention is applied to Hong Kong. The question of what would be the Hong Kong authority for the purposes of Article 10 would be
AE1AGF
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.