TNAG-2716-FCO40-3922-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1993 — Page 141

Declaration provides that the two Covenants as applied to Hong Kong "shall

remain in force" there after 1997. This is an international commitment

that the Chinese have agreed to and if they were to do that then they would

Then the normal procedures for

be in breach of the Joint Declaration.

settlement of disputes and so on would apply, but as I said earlier, there

is not unfortunately the power to go unilaterally to the Court of Justice.

There are always down sides whenever a government reneges on an

international commitment and certainly so far as the Chinese are concerned

that would be a matter which they would have to take very seriously.

81.

What is your view of China's record of abiding by

international agreements so far?

(Mr Chamberlain) Well, I think it has been very mixed.

82.

Sir John Stanley

As I understand it you are saying to us that the continuation

of fundamental human rights in Hong Kong after 1997 is going to be

dependent solely on the bilateral agreement between the British Government

and the Chinese Government. Are we therefore right to conclude that on the

assumption that the Chinese Government continues to refuse to become a

signatory of the two Conventions the legal implications and the practical

implications of that are that the people of Hong Kong will not have the

same means of redress by getting access to international institutions, the

United Nations and so on, that they would have if the Chinese became

signatories to the Conventions?

(Mr Chamberlain)

I think this is a rather difficult question if I

may say. This is one of the reasons indeed why we consider it would be

highly desirable for both Hong Kong and China to be bound by the

International Covenants.

83.

So you are confirming that the non-signatory by China to the

22