TNAG-2810-FCO40-4055-Future-of-Hong-Kong-International-Rights-and-Obligations-(IR-1993 — Page 56

Our reference: EDP 262/1

Foreign & Commonwealth

Office

28 June 1993

Ms A Godfrey

Dept of the Environment

GA3, Room B2.60

Romney House

43 Marsham Street

London SW1P 3PY

Dear and,

MONTREAL PROTOCOL: TAIWAN

London SWIA 2AH

Telephone: 071-

210-0433

031/5

RI

93

INDEX

CISTRY on Taken

1.

You recently copied to me the Commission's draft proposal for a Council Regulation to consolidate the existing EC Regulation (594/91 as amended by 3952/92) and implement within the Community the Amendments to the Montreal Protocol agreed at Copenhagen.

2. Earlier this year we asked UKRep Brussels to obtain the agreement of the Commission, and other Member States, that the correct interpretation of Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol and Articles 59 of the existing Regulation is that Taiwan is not subject to trade controls. We also asked UKRep to encourage the Commission to use the Protocol wording "any State not party" rather than "non-parties" when drafting the revised EC Regulation.

3. As you know I consulted Legal Advisers (my minute of 17 June to Ms Barrett, copied to you) to clarify whether the Regulation, as currently drafted, corresponds sufficiently closely to the wording of the Protocol to be similarly interpreted. I attach a copy of Ms Barrett's minute of 25 June.

4.

Whilst the draft incorporates the term "any State not party" in a number of the Articles there are still a number of inconsistencies which will need to be taken up with the Commission. I should be grateful if you, or Simon Featherstone (to whom this letter is copied), could put the points set out in Ms Barrett's minute to the Commission either informally or during discussions in the Environment Working Group.

23