Page 88 - Historical Summaries (Persian Gulf) 1907-1953

I

82
whether in defending n civil suit in a British
Court, or in meeting an international claim, must
!»• the same, namely, the extent of the rights and
jurisdiction possessed by the Arab Chiefs. The
chart which we inclose shows that tho pearl banks
extend to considerable distances from the main­
land or from any island. Within the 3-milo
limit it scorns evident that no dirticulty need bo
encountered, and that tho rights over tho pearl
bunks, and the jurisdiction required to assert
those rights, are indisputable, lleyond this zone,
however, the case is loss clear. We understand
that it has becomo an uncontested principle of
modem international law that tho sea, as a
general rule, cannot be subjected to appropria­
tion. At tho same time, we believe that it is
admitted that portions of the sea may be affected
ljy proprietary rights on the part of the States
whose territories it adjoins, and that suoh rights
have been more especially recognized in the case
of fisheries, to which the inhabitants of a neigh­
bouring State have established a claim through
immemorial exercise of the right of fishing.
There cau be no doubt that the rights of which
they now claim the exclusive enjoyment have
been exercised by the Arabs of these coasts from
time immemorial; and we consider, therefore,
that the fact of these fisheries being in part out­
side the limits of territorial waters need not
necessarily constitute a conclusive bar to the
claim. In the pearl fisheries of Ceylou we have
a precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction beyond
the 3*mile limit under the Colonial Act of 1811,
which authorizes the seizure and condemnation
of any boat found within the limits of, or hover­
ing near, the pearl banks extending from (5 to 21
miles from the coast; and it may be observed
that, in the recent Behring Sea Arbitration, the
United States of America cited the Ceylon pre­
cedent as justifying their exercise of possession
in, and control over, seal fisheries beyond tho
zone of territorial waters as ordinarily recognized
hv international law. It is also worth noting
that the above contention is supported by the
authority of the Swiss publicist, Vattel, who in
his “ Droits des Gens ” remarked, in discussing
the question as far ‘buck as the eighteenth
century, “ Qui doutora que les p£cheries de perles
de Bahrein et dc Ceylan ne puissent legitime-
mi nt tomber en propriety ?’* We believe, there­
fore, that our claim to exclude all foreign
pearling vessels from the limits of the fisheries-