Page 134 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

I 1

:r;
:l 72 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
.
tics between the British Government and the Shaikhdoms. However,
it is clear from the history of British treaty relations with the Shaikh­
doms that such treaties were not imposed on the Rulers as a result of
: conquests but were concluded in consequence of special requests for
British protection made freely by the Rulers themselves.1
This British attitude towards the Shaikhdoms during the period
! under discussion appears to have reflected the traditional practice of
governments and agents of other European Powers prevailing during
the same period vis-a-vis rulers of Arab and Asian countries of the
.q
Far and Middle East. From such practice one may deduce that
governments and agents of those Powers treated the rulers of native
Arab and Asian countries as ‘sovereigns’ who were capable of con­
cluding treaties with foreign Powers and of transferring rights ‘in
the international sense’ over territories subject to their sovereignty
and jurisdiction.2 Consequently, those Powers regarded themselves
precluded, by usage and custom, from acquiring titles to territories
within the jurisdiction of Arab and Asian rulers as if such territories
were terra null ins.3
The following explanation has been given of this practice in con­
nection with the attitudes of governments of Portuguese, Spanish,
French and British Powers towards native States of Arab, Indian and
Far Eastern regions:
Some of the native states—at least in India, Ceylon, and the Arab regions
—were considered by the Portuguese [and the Spanish] as entities having
something akin to sovereignty in the international sense and capacity to
transfer it. Treaties were madewith some native potentates . . . Sometrcaties
have clauses dealing with customs and harbour duties, extra-territorial
jurisdiction, and extradition of criminals, and the inclusion of such pro­
visions seems to correspond with the character of true international
treaties . . .4
The same authors have explained the exceptional attitude of French
and English discoverers towards rulers of Arab regions as follows:
It was very common usage among English and French discoverers to make
agreements with native inhabitants of the lands which they explored or
1 See Part One.
2 See Keller, A. S., and others, Creation of Rights of Sovereignty through Symbolic
Acts; (1400-1800) (1938), pp. 6-9, for a study of the practice of governments and
a°ents of European powers regarding the acquisition of title to terra niillius.
°3 See ibid., p. 6. In contrast, the authors state that chiefs of other African and
American communities were not regarded as possessing any sovereign status. The
territories of such chiefs were therefore regarded as terra itullius (i.c., lands not
under any sovereignty). , ^ , ,
4 Ibid. In contrast, the authors state, at pp. 6-9, that the Portuguese regarded
the tribes of Moluccas and the East Indies as possessing no sovereignty, and their
territories were therefore terra null ins, the acquisition of which did not depend
on the acts of natives perse.