Page 135 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

THE PRESENT LEGAL POSITION 73
found. The customary phrase in the instruction to such discoverers autho­
rised them to annex, in the name of their sovereign, any lands ‘not previously
possessed by any Christian prince’. For practical reasons it was impossible to
apply such methods to countries found in the possession of native Arab,
Chinese, and East Indian peoples who were considered in practice to
possess an international status, and agreements made with such govern­
ments may be regarded in general as having had the status of international
treaties, as has been brought out in the preceding section.1
Comparing agreements made with Arab and Asian rulers with those
made with African chiefs and other semi-barbarous tribes, the same
authors say:
Of an entirely difTcrent nature were those arrangements made with the
native tribes, often semi-barbarous or savage peoples, which were found by
the French and English discoverers and to whose lands title had been
claimed by the discoverers usually through the performance of symbolic
acts in such lands when convenient.2
In conclusion, it may be stated that by recognising the sovereignty
of the Rulers of the Gulf States during the nineteenth century, the
British Government had merely reaffirmed the traditional practice of
European powers regarding their dealings with Arab and Asian rulers
of these regions.

(ii) Stains under British protection: evolution of their international
personality
An examination of the terms of the Shaikhdom’s treaties with the
United Kingdom (especially those treaties concluded during the period
between 1880 and 1916), shows clearly that these Shaikhdoms have
surrendered to the British Government their rights of sovereignty in
respect of the matters following:
1. The establishment of direct diplomatic or consular relations
with foreign Powers other than the United Kingdom.
2. The negotiation or the conclusion of treaties or agreements with
foreign States, other than the United Kingdom, without the sanction
of the United Kingdom.
3. The cession or the disposal of their territories by means of sale,
lease, mortgage, or by other means, without the agreement of the
United Kingdom.
4. The grant of mineral or oil concessions to foreign Governments
1 Ibid., pp. 10, 150.
2 Ibid., pp. 10-12. Another writer, Mr Snow, draws a similar analogy of
European powers’ practice and usage during the eighteenth and nineteenth cen­
turies. He deduces from that practice that while rulers of North African Arab
countries were recognised as possessing ‘sovereignty’, chiefs of‘aborigines' of other
regions of Africa were not. See Snow, A. H., The Question of Aborigines in the
Law and Practice of Nations (1919), pp. 117-27, 122-6.