TNAG-2716-FCO40-3922-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1993 — Page 163

individuals, one should take the view that where a territory has been bound

that obligation can subsist to the successor entity rather than to look too

That is a further closely at the question of succession and the like.

reason, Chairman, why my view is that the better interpretation of Article

XIII, final sentence, is that the provisions of the International Covenant

are not just the substantive rights but also include the procedures, and in

this instance that a mechanism should be found consistent with the Joint

Declaration to ensure that after 1997 and for the next 50 years at least

the people of Hong Kong are protected by a system of regular reporting to

the Human Rights Committeee under the Covenant. I would simply add that it

would plainly also be in the spirit of the instrument, and there is nothing

in the Treaty that would prevent this happening, were China to accept that

for Hong Kong at least there should be the right of individual petition

under the Optional Protocol.

112.

That is a very interesting and very comprehensive answer.

I do not know whether Mr Keller or Dr Slinn would like to comment on it

before we close?

(Dr Slinn) I would entirely endorse everything Mr Duffy has said.

Nevertheless of course one is left with the problem, will China accept an

obligation to report in relation to Hong Kong?

Chairman: As you say, we end with a question rather than an answer.

113.

Mr Harris

Is this not a point? It is marvellous, what Mr Duffy said,

but with China, I guess, looking at its past history, it is unlikely to do

So.

If it does not go along with that approach where are we left?

(Mr Duffy) All one can do is to answer as a matter of law and to do an

analysis of the Joint Declaration and the Treaty. The position is that

if

-

and one obviously hopes that this will not be the situation

44