TNAG-2861-FCO40-4115-Expulsion-of-Han-Dongfang--Chinese-dissident--from-China-to--1993 — Page 62

RE

243/

13

Mr Bunten

HKD WH305

Ickes.

From:

Miss Shelagh Brooks

Legal Counsellor

Date:

23 August 1993

13

HAN DONGFANG

1. I refer to Hong Kong telno 1361. This informs us that the Chinese government have decided to revoke Han's passport. Preliminary legal advice from the Hong Kong Government, on which they would welcome views, is that this does not render Han stateless unless it is the Chinese intention to do so.

2. It seems likely that the Chinese had previously decided to revoke Han's Chinese nationality and that the revocation of his passport was the consequence of the nationality decision. It also seems probable that Han is now stateless. Although the consequences of the revocation of the passport fall to be decided by Chinese law, it is unlikely that the revocation would in itself render Han stateless; statelessness would be the result of revoking his nationality.

3.

The Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961, Article 8, paragraph 3 which is referred to in the Wen Wei Po article which you copied to me, provides in Article 8, paragraph 3 that a signatory state may deprive an individual of his nationality if, at the time of signature, ratification or accession, a state specifies its retention of such a right on one of the grounds laid down in that section, being grounds existing in its national law at that time. The grounds include that he "has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State". The author of the article argues that China has conformed to the spirit of the Convention; however "vital interest" has to be judged objectively and it clearly means something different from political grounds. Article 9 provides that the contracting state may not deprive the person of his nationality inter alia on political grounds. Article 9 is conveniently not referred to in the Wen Wei Po article. Unfortunately though, the PRC is not a party to that Convention.

4.

Weis, in his book "Nationality and Statelessness in International Law" at page 126 takes the view "that the right of a State to make rules governing the loss of its nationality is, in principle - with the possible exception of the prohibition of discriminatory deprivation - not restricted by international law, unless a State has by treaty undertaken specific obligations imposing such restrictions". States are entitled to provide in their laws for the loss of nationality of their own nationals and in particular to deprive their