Page 325 - Records of Bahrain (6)_Neat

Persian claim to Bahrain, 1948 313

4 ARABIA
of developing political and historical relations it has been accepted as permanent?
E\e Juotis jus oritur. In one caso ft'comparative shortness of time may ho mado
lip for by tho complete absence of any adverse claims. In another ease adverse
claims not pressed to their logical conclusion by resort to arms or to arbitration
may be outweighed by the lapse of a long period of time. In earlier days, when
recourse to arbitration was not possible and substantially the only method of
pressing an adverso claim was by war, it may well be that tho mere passage of
Ijjno would not in general bar such claims as were at least publicly and constantly
'assorted; for it would have been impossible for small Powors, deprived of their
territory by force, to mess their claims by force. But in more modorn times
when it has been possible for States with territorial claims to go to arbitration
or to invoke political action by the Leaguo or the United Nations we incline
to the view that the failure so to do will result in time running against and
barring such claims. How long a time will be required to produce such a result
must depend on circumstances: we do not ithink that tho rule as to time
immemorial or oven the 100 years suggested by Grotius is any longer to be
regarded as absolute. We think the test is-dias this state of.affairs gone on
so long as to lead to its general acceptance?
3. Applying that test to the ease of the Bahrein Islands, we conclude
that at least since 1783 Persia has not exercised any effective control or sovereignty
and that since 1820 no other Powers have, at all events avowedly, recognised her
as possessing any right so to do. Since 1820 His Majesty has been in Treaty
relations with the riding Sheikh; for a considerable time the Islands havo been
treated as a British Protectorate without challenge except by Persia and, for.
a time, Turkey. The Persian claim is not based on nationality, its historical
origin is obscure and the legal doctrines on which it sought to vest it aro doubtful.
We see no reason therefore to think that tho International Court would
accord to the Persian claims a recognition that they have, as we understand,
failed to achieve from any sovereign Power during the last 100 years.
Our answers to the questions put to us accordingly aro ■
1. We spe no reason to differ from the conclusion expressed by our
predecessors in 1034, nor do we think that events since that date
nave in any way diminished the validity of that conclusion.
2. We do not think tluit the International Court would find in favour of
the Persian claims and if Iheso are persisted in wo should not think
it unreasonable to adopt Ibe course of action followed in the caso
of British Honduras. We cannot, however, say that there is " no
appreciable risk ” in this course. Having regard to the existing
stale of international relationships, and to the composition of the
International Court, we should feel unable to say that of any case,
however unarguable we might ourselves consider it. And we do
not consider the Persian case wholly unarguable, unconvincing though
we believe it to be.
HARTLEY SHAW CROSS.
FRANK SOSKICE.

Baxu Officers' Department,
28th May, 1048.