FAC SESSION ON HONG KONG: 3 NOVEMBER 1993
SUMMARY OF FIRST PART: EVIDENCE FROM FCO
Howell
JA
international ins Status of three documents^(JD, BL AND 1990 exchanges)? Can they be referred to ICJ?
Chamberlain (Read from statement) Any parts of BL UK thinks in confuct (ID?
Canavan
Chamberlain
Wareing
4 1 or 2 gaps, estat
G
EC composition & nationality
prensions.
If so car e refere Which parts of BL did UK not like? A. No s
nesumstere
a ternational couns infficent digute at present of charged 3lnj For example, we wished to see greater progress towards democracy, and would have preferred not to have the 20% nationality/right of abode restriction in LegCo.
China doesn't recognise ICJ?
dispute
but civtunt
evel have to bl
negotiation/ abration i
Chamberlain Has not accepted compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ
Wareing
Has this been put to China?
Chamberlain Not in context of this, but UK policy is that as many States as possible should accept compulsory jurisdiction. Our views well known.
Harris
Chamberlain
Sumberg
Chamberlain
Gapes
Chamberlain
Gapes
Chamberlain
Gapes
If dispute, no possibility of reference to international body e.g. ICJ?
Wrong to speculate what would happen if there were a dispute. Hope negotiation will succeed.
We had great difficulty getting Chinese to say where proposals in breach of JD. Do you know?
Not aware of any specific arguments.
1990 exchanges - China said unilateral breach of faith and violation of agreements.
Not treaty. If any commitment, could only be Gentleman's agreement. But not any agreement.
Were there any aspects agreed?
Yes. 1991 election- 18 seats, if BL provided for 1997 20 etc. Reflected in BL
But on rest, discussions and tentative agreement on some aspects, in context of amending BL, but final text did not reflect e.g. five principles. Inconclusive on other points. Exchange overtaken.
If inconclusive, wasn't it necessary to carry on
talking? ather than enounce proposals & can be seen a
bree of fourth
ܪ،
j
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.