Beijing Review which is something of a Government mouthpiece, is that that
gap was left because it would not be appropriate for the Basic Law to
specify what was to happen in 1995. But behind that was of course in their
view an agreement as to what was going to happen, how that gap would be
filled. But if there was no agreement then the gap was there to be used or
to be filled as the Hong Kong Government saw as appropriate.
111.
Sir John Stanley
Following up what the Foreign Office officials said, they
highlighted the provision in Annex I of the Joint Declaration, the last
paragraph of Article XIII, which says: "The provisions of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights as applied to Hong Kong
shall remain in force." It would be helpful to hear from you to what
extent that wording does provide a practically operable ability to
individuals in Hong Kong or groups in Hong Kong after 1997 to seek
international redress and enforcement of that provision from international
organisations and institutions.
(Mr Duffy) Chairman, from the point of view of ensuring international
protection of human rights it would plainly be desirable for the People's
Republic of China to join those states that have ratified the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In relation to the position of
Hong Kong itself, the language that is used in Article XIII might be the
subject of divergent interpretations. One view of it would be to say that
the provisions of the International Covenant remain in force in Hong Kong
whether through the common law or the Bill of Rights or the Basic Law as
the Foreign Office representative indicated, but that the provisions do not
necessarily include the procedures. The procedures under the International
Covenant are essentially two-fold. One mechanism is for reporting to the
42
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.