hypothetically after 1997 in respect of Hong Kong there should be a clear
failure to ensure that human rights and other elements of the lifestyle
that had been agreed in the Treaty are not observed in practice not just
a matter of what the legal text says; it is the practice that matters
then there could be a breach of the obligations of China under the Joint
Declaration and there would be then a matter of a treaty dispute between
Her Majesty's Government and The People's Republic of China. How far that
would be capable of being resolved by means of diplomatic approaches or
other approaches I think one would just have to speculate about. From the
point of view of the International Treaty there is an obligation under
Article III of the Joint Declaration on China after 1997 to ensure that the
previous lifestyle continues. The previous lifestyle is not such a general
phrase as all that because in Article 3, paragraph 5, of the Joint
Declaration "lifestyle" in the first sentence is explained in context by
what follows. What follows is reference to: "Rights and freedoms,
including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of
association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of
choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be
ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Adminsitrative Region. Private
property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and
foreign investment will be protected by law.” So here one has in the body
of the Treaty itself quite explicitly spelt out elements of the lifestyle
which China as a matter of international agreement has undertaken to
observe and ensure in Hong Kong over the next 50 years.
114.
Sir John Stanley
Mr Duffy, you said in answer to my first question on this
particular point something extremely interesting to me, which was that, as
I understood you to say, you thought it would be desirable for the Hong
45
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.