Page 148 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

86 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES

His answer to this question is that it is difficult to reply to it in the
negative.1
J. Brierly, on the other hand, comments upon the phrase ‘A treaty
is an agreement’ in the following terms:
Not every agreement, even between entities possessing capacity to make
treaties, is, however, a treaty. At least within the meaning of the present
draft the use of the term ‘treaty’ is confined to the connotation of such
agreements between international persons as to establish relations under
international law (i.c., create rights or obligations in international law)
between the parties.2
It may be deduced from Brierly’s statement that he did not regard
treaties between the protected and the protecting State as treaties
establishing relations under international law.3
In connection with the treaties of the Shaikhdoms, which do not
seem to differ materially from other treaties in general use establishing
protectorates, one is faced with the same difficulty as to whether such
treaties can be regarded as establishing relationships which are gov­
erned by international law and whether a dispute between the United
Kingdom and the Shaikhdoms in respect of the revision or the inter­
pretation of these treaties can be subject to international arbitration.
The United Kingdom has, on various occasions, laid emphasis upon
her treaty relations with the Shaikhdoms. She has also referred to
them as ‘independent States which Her Majesty's Government are
under duty to protect’.4 It would appear from such statements that
the British Government does not dismiss the binding force of its
treaties with the Shaikhdoms. This does not necessarily mean, how­
ever, that it regards the treaties in question as international instru­
ments to which international rules of treaty interpretation can be
applied. The fact that these treaties are neither included in the British
r with Article 102 of the Charter, shows that the British Government
treaty series, nor registered with the United Nations, in accordance
does not attribute to them international status.5 On British practice
in respect of such treaties Lord McNair states:
An engagement between the United Kingdom and any Protected State
within the Empire possessing no international status is not international.
1 Lautcrpacht, op. cit.
2 Brierly, J., Special Rapporteur, ‘Report on the Law of Treaties’, International
Law Commission, A/CN.4/23, 14 April 1950, p. 12.
3 In the discussion on Brierly s Report, Manley O. Hudson expressed the view
that ‘There were certain categories of States not covered by the text; for example,
the Malay States, which had lost their competence to make treaties.’ He also held
that ‘Those States should also be excluded which were members of Federal Union.’
See U.N. Yearbook of International Law Commission, I (1951), p. 139.
8 Only British treaties with Muscat were registered with the League of Nations.
At present, these treaties are registered with the United Nations, and arc pub-