TNAG-2716-FCO40-3922-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1993 — Page 150

Mr Canavan

93.

I

Could you tell us please what opportunities might exist in the

future to pursue complaints that the Joint Declaration has been breached or

a particular aspect of the Basic Law contravenes the Joint Declaration?

am thinking particularly of the situation after 1997. Who can pursue such

as Would it be the British Government, one of the signatories a complaint?

of the agreement? Would it be the SAR Government or could an individual or

group of individuals in Hong Kong pursue such a complaint, and what are the

mechanics of pursuing such a complaint, bearing in mind what the Foreign

Office officials told us about China's lack of regard for the International

Court of Justice?

Perhaps I

(Dr Slinn) I entirely endorse what Kevin Chamberlain said about the

position in relation to the International Court of Justice.

should add that the United Kingdom is the only one of the five permanent

members of the Security Council which accepts the compulsory jurisdiction

of the International Court of Justice in respect of disputes which may

occur in the future, in the general sense of the so-called option clause.

I do not think one should say the Chinese are, as it were, out of line in

that particular respect. I am afraid therefore one is left with a

situation that if there does appear to be a breach of China's obligations

under the Joint Declaration this will have to be left to the ordinary

process of negotiation. I cannot myself imagine, given what I understand

to be the Chinese position on these matters, that the Chinese would be

likely to accept independent international adjudication in respect of any

dispute. That is a hypothetical question and perhaps it is not too helpful

to speculate on it.

31

Page 150Page 151