Page 141 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

THE PRESENT LEGAL POSITION 79
Less dependent on Britain arc the . . . Persian Gulf Shaikhdoms. . . .
These principalities, known in official British usage as ‘independent states
in special treaty relations with His Majesty’s Government’, arc quasi-
protectorates. While they retained full internal sovereignty, they never-
thclcss surrendered to the United Kingdom in treaties ... all external
sovereignty . . .l
In conclusion, it may be argued that the Shaikhdoms cannot be
regarded as International Persons as long as they still lack full external
sovereignty by virtue of their treaties with the United Kingdom which
arc still in full force. But the cogency of this argument may be doubted,
since it has not been suggested by either textbook writers or by the
International Court that for an entity to be regarded as a Person of
international law it must have achieved a full, internal and external,
sovereignty.2
At the same time, it may be asked whether the personality enjoyed
by the Shaikhdoms is similar to that enjoyed by fully independent

1 Hurewitz, J. C., The British Imperial System’, International Conciliation:
(Unity and Disunity in the Middle East), No. 481, May 1952, p. 217. See also for
a similar view, Brinton, J. Y., ‘The Arabian Peninsula, The Protectorates and
Shaikhdoms’, Revue Egyptienne tie Droit International, 3 (1947), pp. 5-38. And see
Fawcett, J. E. S., The British Commonwealth in International Law (1963) p. 120,
where he cites the Gulf States as examples of protection based on treaties. ‘The
protection over these Shaikhdoms’, he says, ‘developed out of the needs to check
slave trade and to prevent regional warfare. . . .’
1 ‘Independence all round’, says Oppenheim, ‘has two main elements: (a) internal
sovereignty, and (b) external sovereignty. A not fully sovereign State (a protected
State), has retained in full its internal sovereignty but has departed, by treaty, with
all or some of the attributes of its external sovereignty.’ See Oppenheim, pp. 118-19.
See also Westlake, pp. 20-2; Wheaton, p. 27; Bricrly, pp. 118-19.
According to Westlake, ‘It is not necessary for a state to be independent in
order to be a state of international law.’ See Westlake, p. 21.
And according to Willoughby, ‘The sovereign state may . . . bind itself to any
extent by its own will ... by treaties (where) it may give its undertaking to other
States not to exercise certain of its powers, or to exercise them only in certain ways,
but these self set limitations it may legally—if not morally—escape by an exercise
of that same sovereign will in pursuance of which they were created. . . .’ See
Willoughby, W. W., Fundamental Concepts of Public Law (1924), p. 21.
The international personality of a not fully sovereign, or a protected. State of
this type is, further, confirmed by Holland who states: ‘The inferior state is itself
recognised as an international unit, though of an imperfect type.’ See Holland,
Sir T. E., Lectures on International Law (1933), p. 69.
Moreover, sec Baty, T., The Canons of International Law (1930), pp. 6-7. He
says: ‘But if its [the protected State] diplomatic relations arc entirely in the hands
of its protector, it docs not follow that it retains no international status.’ And see
Svarlien, Oscar, An Introduction to the Law of Nations (1955), p. 86.
Finally, see the decision of the International Court regarding the Rights of the
United Stales Nationals in Morocco (1952), in which it was stated that ‘Morocco,
even under the protectorate, has retained its personality as a State in International
Law*. See above, p. 66.