Page 127 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 65
It is clear that the international position of protectorates cannot be
described by reference to a single general rule, since the circumstances
of each protected State vary according to the particular arrangements
stipulated by the treaty or treaties establishing the protectorate. Conse­
quently, in each case it is necessary to examine the treaties with the
protecting State.1 The fact, however, that the protecting State repre­
sents the protected State ‘internationally’ does not seem to affect the
sovereignty and statehood of the latter which, according to Oppen-
heim, ‘always has, and retains, for some purposes, a position of its
own as an International Person and a subject of International Law’.2
In a case where the protectorate was established, as in Egypt,3 by a
unilateral declaration, the position of the protectorate, says Fitz-
maurice, ‘would have to be inferred from the circumstances in which
it had been established and the manner in which it had been exercised’.4
Decisions of the International Court on protectorates
The International Court5 has given two decisions relative to the status
of the former French Protectorates over Tunisia and Morocco. Those
decisions are of particular interest in this discussion because of the
general observations which they contain on the status of certain pro­
tectorates in the international community. The following rules may be
drawn from the first case, that of the Nationality Decrees Issued in
Tunis and Morocco (1923): The extent of power conferred on the pro­
tecting Power depends in the first place upon the treaty or ‘treaties
between the protecting State and the protected State establishing the
protectorate’, and secondly, ‘upon the conditions under which the
Protectorate has been recognised by third Powers as against whom
there is an intention to rely on the provisions of these treaties’.6
Further, the Court held that ‘in spite of common features possessed
by Protectorates under international law, they have individual char­
acteristics resulting from the special conditions under which they were
1 Schwarzenbcrgcr, pp. 92-4. See also Cavarc, op. cit., p. 424; Oppenheim,
p. 192.
* Oppenheim, pp. 192-3.
’Great Britain, by a unilateral declaration of 18 December 1914, terminated
Turkish suzerainty over Egypt and declared a protectorate over her. On 28 Feb­
ruary 1922 she abolished the protectorate regime over Egypt and declared the
latter to be an independent sovereign State, reserving, however, certain privileges
to be exercised according to the discretion of the British Government.
For the declaration of 1922, sec Treaty Series, No. 1 (1922), Cmd, 1592. For
British announcement to foreign Powers on this matter, see ibid., No. 2 (1922),
Cmd. 1617. For the declaration of 18 December 1914, establishing protectorate
over Egypt, see Hertslct, Commercial Treaties, vol. 27, pp. 107-8.
4 Fitzmauricc, Sir Gerald, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court
of Justice’, B.Y.I.L., 30 (1953), p. 4.
6 This phrase applies to the Permanent Court of International Justice as well.
6 F.C./V., Scries B, No. 4 (1923), p. 24.