TNAG-2716-FCO40-3922-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1993 — Page 124

others we would like to have seen drafted differently or accepted by the

Chinese side. However, what I must stress is that the Basic Law is a

Chinese document. It was not a document to which the British Government

gave or had to give its agreement.

47.

Are there any parts of the Basic Law now which the United

Kingdom Government still thinks are inconsistent with the Joint

Declaration?

(Mr Chamberlain)

I think it is difficult to say inconsistent.

I

think there are one or two gaps in the Basic Law, in particular a gap on

the composition of the Election Committee and the provisions on

nationality.

48.

Mr Canavan

If there is a point of dispute as to whether a particular part

of the Basic Law contravenes the Joint Declaration, can that point of

dispute be taken to the International Court?

(Mr Chamberlain)

Of course the connection with the Basic Law and the

Joint Declaration is that the Basic Law must conform to the Joint

Declaration, in particular Annex II. If, and this is a big if because we

do not believe there are any points of sufficient dispute as to say that as

of now there is a dispute, but if, for example, the Basic Law were to be

changed so as to be inconsistent with the Joint Declaration, and that of

course would only happen after 1 July 1997, because as I said the Basic Law

is not yet in force, then there would be a dispute with the Chinese and we

would have the right to raise it with them. I should say that the Chinese

have not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of

Justice. Therefore, it would not be possible for the United Kingdom to

take China unilaterally to the court, but as with any other diplomatic or

legal dispute it would have to be resolved initially by discussion,

5