TNAG-2716-FCO40-3922-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1993 — Page 147

1:5 FAC

MR PETER DUFFY, Barrister, MR PERRY KELLER, Law Faculty, University of

Manchester, and DR PETER SLINN, Law Department, School of Oriental

and African Studies, University of London, examined.

Chairman

MKB 01118

RECSE

RY

I

90.

We now proceed to the second half of our morning's hearing.

would like to begin by welcoming very warmly Mr Peter Duffy, Mr Perry

|-

Keller and Dr Peter Slinn. We are extremely grateful to you all for

agreeing to come and see us this morning, to help us with these highly

complex matters. Perhaps I could begin straightaway by addressing a

question to all of you. You have heard the evidence we have taken about

the status of these documents, and whether they have been interpreted

correctly by British policy or whether the Chinese complaints about them

should have any validity. Do you agree?

(Mr Duffy) In relation to the status of the Joint Declaration, the

fact that it is informally described as a treaty is not decisive. I agree

with the perspective expressed by the Foreign Office that this instrument

should be regarded as a treaty and a binding instrument in international

law. Article 2(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties

specifically says that a treaty means an international agreement concluded

between the states in written form. It also specifies specifically

whatever its particular designation.

The fact that the Joint Declaration

is not in terms called a treaty, is not decisive. It is clearly intended

to create a framework both for British policy in respect of Hong Kong

leading up to the transition, and also to provide guarantees and

obligations after that date for a period of 50 years, in relation to the

peoples of Hong Kong. It has been registered with the United Nations, and

so from that perspective the conclusion that it is a treaty in my view is

28