Page 143 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

THE PRESENT LEGAL POSITION 81
Crown exercises jurisdiction in these protectorates over all subjects
on the basis of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1S90.1 Legislation is
enacted by Orders in Council, and an act of the Crown in relation to
a native individual is regarded as an act of state which cannot be
questioned in English Courts.2 However, the inhabitants of these pro­
tectorates are not British subjects. They are known as British protected
persons and they arc entitled to British protection abroad.3
(b) Protected States: In these States the British Government has recog­
nised the sovereignty of the local rulers who have retained their
independence at least in regard to the administration of their own
governments. In regard to the external affairs of these States the powers
reserved by the Crown are based on treaty obligations. In practice
the extent of powers exercised by the Crown in these States varies
from one State to another according to the particular circumstance
of each State.4 They are all, however, considered to be sovereign
States and their rulers are granted immunities from jurisdiction in
British courts.5
The distinction between protectorates and protected States, under
constitutional law, is drawn by Keith as follows:
The essential characteristic of the Protectorate is that the Crown assumes
and exercises full sovereign authority, though without annexing the terri­
tory. In the case of the Protected States the sovereign authority belongs to the
sovereign of the State, and not in any sense to the British Crown, and the
role of the latter is derived from treaty arrangements with the States which
do not confer any sovereignty over them, but give powers and duties in
respect either of both internal and external affairs, or to the latter almost
exclusively.®
According to Professor Wade, protected States ‘are internally
autonomous, only their foreign relations being controlled by the
United Kingdom’.7 And according to Robbins, a protected State ‘is
1 Keith, Constitutional Law, op. cit., pp. 553-8.
2 Sec The King v. Earl of Crewe ex parte Sekgome [1910] 2 K.B. 576: A writ
of habeas corpus for the release of a native chief in the Bechuanaland was refused
on the ground that his arrest by an Order in Council was an act of state. And see
Soblmza II v. Miller [1926] A.C. 518: the Crown’s authority in a protectorate can­
not be challenged even by the treaty by which authority was first acquired. See also
Rex v. Southern Rhodesia [1919] A.C. 211; Chief Tshekodi Kharna v. Ratshosa
[1931] A.C. 784: chiefs of African colonial protectorates do not enjoy immunity
from jurisdiction of British courts.
3 Stewart, op. cit., pp. 25-6.
4 Keith, Governments, op. cit., p. 508; Ridges, E. W., Constitutional Law, 8th ed.
(1950), p. 508.
6 Sec Mighell v. Sultan of Johore [1894] 1 Q.B. 149; Duff Development Company
v. Government of Kelantan [1924] A.C. 797.
c Keith, Governments, op. cit., p. 508.
7 Wade and Phillips, Constitutional Law, 5th cd. (1955), p. 445; and see ibid.,
6th cd. (1960), pp. 400-2.