would say, no, they did not take that final step, but I think they came
rather close.
92.
Dr Slinn, is that how you see it?
(Dr Slinn) Yes, I would agree with what my colleagues have said about
the binding nature of the Joint Declaration. If any further reassurance is
sought on that point one only has to look at the provisions of the
Declaration itself where the parties expressly agree to implement the
Declaration and the Annexes; in other words, they agree expressly in the
instrument itself that these are binding obligations on the parties. As
far as the Basic Law is concerned, as I think Mr Duffy said, there clearly
is a relationship between the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration in the
sense that it is through the medium of the Basic Law that the Chinese
Government will carry out its obligations under the Joint Declaration in
respect of its policies towards Hong Kong from 1997 onwards.
I would say,
however, that the Chinese Government very much maintain the view, as
appears in the 1990 correspondence, that the act of drafting the law is
purely a Chinese matter. I think that that may be relevant to the status
of the 1990 correspondence. I would agree I think with how Mr Chamberlain
sees it from the British point of view, but it seems to me from the Chinese
side that they would not wish to or be prepared to enter into any
negotiation with the United Kingdom Government which would impose
additional international obligations on them in respect of the terms of the
Basic Law. In other words, I do not think on either side the 1990
correspondence would have been likely to lead to or embody any
international agreement in the terms that Mr Duffy defined.
30
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.