I
aeronautical authorities of both sides" (paragraph (3)(ii)). suggest that you use the second of these expressions throughout. The suitability of the first is in any case rather debatable in the Hong Kong context. In paragraph (4) you twice refer to a "third State", which has the unacceptable implication that Hong Kong itself is a State. I suggest you substitute "third area". I do not know what Hong Kong's view of a double disapproval tariff regime will be, but it may be that this would not be approved by the Chinese government.
6.
In Article 15 I suggest we stick to the Hong Kong draft wording. The expression "third State" is not suitable here (see above), nor is the reference to "the same nationality as one of the Contracting Parties", as Hong Kong does not have its own nationals. A similar point applies to your changes to draft Article 17 and to the inclusion of a registration Article (where the Chinese would
presumably have difficulties with the
idea that Hong Kong can communicate direct with ICAO). As regards registration, the absence of such an Article would not prevent us registering the ASA with ICAO in the usual way pursuant to Article 83 of the Chicago Convention.
7.
Finally, I would suggest that in note 2 to the Route Schedules, "jointly agreed" should read "jointly determined". This would be consistent both with the wording of the routes themselves ("points beyond to be jointly determined") and with the practice of fifth freedom rights being determined in MOUS rather than agreed in binding agreements.
8. I am copying this letter, together with yours, to John Hall (AMD), Rod Bunten (HKD) and Shelagh Brooks (Legal Counsellor).
yous ever,
Film
John Grainger
Assistant Legal Adviser
it.ukhngasa
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.