Page 147 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

TIIE PRESENT LEGAL POSITION 85
Consequently, the Crown had no hesitation in disregarding those
treaties whenever, says Hall, ‘the supreme interests of Empire (were)
involved or even when the interests of the subjects of the native princes
(were) gravely affected’.1
Treaties are normally defined as ‘agreements between States, in­
cluding organizations of States . . .’2 ‘The result of some such inter­
pretation of the term “States” ’, says H. Lauterpacht, ‘would be, for
instance, that agreements made between the protected and the pro­
tecting State, either at the time of the establishment of the Protectorate
or subsequently, could not be regarded as treaties.’ ‘However,’ he
continues, such agreements ‘have been so treated judicially by both
international and municipal tribunals. Rules and principles of inter­
national law applicable to treaties have been applied to them.’3
It may be pointed out that in making this statement, H. Lauter­
pacht had in mind the decisions of the International Court on the
status of Tunisia and Morocco to which reference has been made
previously. However, as a contribution to the idea that the agreement
between the protecting and the protected State cannot be deprived of
its international character, the Rapporteur cites another case as
follows:
Agreements between the protecting and the protected State are frequent
and there has often been no disposition, even on the part of the protecting
State, to question their international character. Thus, for instance, in the
proceedings before the Permanent Court of International Justice in connec­
tion with its Advisory Opinion on the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig
Poland did not seem to questionthc international character of the agreement
concluded between her and Danzig—a protected State.4
In the light of the above-mentioned decisions, he proceeds to con­
sider the following question:
If the protecting and the protected State while disagreeing as to the
interpretation of a particular provision in the agreement establishing the
protectorate or of any treaty subsequently concluded between themselves
were to agree to submit their dispute to an international tribunal, would the
latter be entitled to consider the agreement to be a treaty and interpret it
by reference to rules applicable to the interpretation of treaties?
1 Westlake, p. 42; Hall, p. 28 (note).
2 Lauterpacht, H., Special Rapporteur, ‘Report on the Law of Treaties’, Inter­
national Law Commission, 5th session, A/CN.4/63, 24 March 1953, p. 17.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid., p. 18. It is to be noted that while considering the status of agreements
between the protecting and protected States, H. Lauterpacht refers, quite wrongly,
to the Treaty of friendship between the United Kingdom and Muscat of 1951,
as an example of ‘a comprehensive treaty’ concluded with a protectorate. This
treaty, as pointed out before, is an international instrument, since Muscat is
not a protectorate.