DEFENSIVE
Why do the Chinese believe that the proposals are in breach of the JD/BL/1990 exchanges?
Not aware of any reasoned argument that the proposals are defective on legal grounds
- JD merely provides that the legislature of the HKSAR shall be constituted by elections. Difficult to see how any proposals for elections could be inconsistent with that
- Proposals carefully designed to ensure consistency with BL, in so far as it specifies how first elections post 1997 are to be conducted. Where BL is silent, and Chinese do not like our proposals on how to fill in the gaps, this indicates a difference of view on policy, not a legal problem. Purpose of current negotiations is to reach agreement on the policy.
POSSIBLE ACCUSATIONS
Breach of JD:
General
UK IS IN BREACH OF OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN AND PRESERVE STABILITY (JD 30) by making fundamental changes to political system causing disruption now and in 1997 when changes will have to be dismantled
·
Changes not fundamental. Reforms gradual and orderly, making transition to system to be implemented in 1997.
Some changes necessary to ensure convergence and to satisfy expectations of HK people for development of democracy. If change insufficient to satisfy majority of moderate opinion in HK, would not be conducive to stability
Any threat to stability now is due not to Governor's proposals, but Chinese public reaction
UK IS IN BREACH OF OBLIGATION OF CLOSER COOPERATION (JD 179) by failing to consult Chinese before announcement of Governor's proposals
Chinese were fully briefed on content of Governor's speech in advance (2 weeks)
Speech only put up proposals not decisions.
We made clear
from outset that we intended them to be the subject of consultations with the Chinese. Those consultations still in progress, and we are working hard to achieve agreement
wwwww
No reason why Governor should not invite the views of the HK public at same time as consulting Chinese. While confidentiality of JLG discussions must be preserved, involving HK people in public debate of issues helpful to preservation of stability and confidence
UK IS IN BREACH OF AN OBLIGATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW TO IMPLEMENT THE BASIC LAW BEFORE 1997 (since UK agreed in JD that PRC would stipulate the basic policies in a Basic Law, the UK has agreed to allow the PRC a power to interpret and elaborate on the provisions of the JD, and is therefore bound by all the contents of the BL)
- JD Article 3 (12) requires Chinese to set out in a BL the basic policies set out in the JD including Annex 1. We are entitled to insist on performance of this obligation, and to
MISS
BARRETS
DEFENSIVE
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.