Page 152 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

90 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES

These quotations make it abundantly clear that the British Govern­
! ment docs not regard its ‘Treaties’ with the tribes in question as inter­
nationally binding. Such Treaties can neither be enforced by any
international tribunal, nor be invoked before British courts, though
; the British Government does acknowledge that they have some moral
; content.1
However, it should be mentioned that the argument that the rela­
tion between the protecting and the protected State (not a colonial
protectorate) is internal has not been accepted by some text writers.
i
Professor Sclnvarzenberger, for example, is of the opinion that the
recognition by third states of the exclusive international agency of the
Protecting Power docs not remove the internal relations between the pro­
tecting Power and the protected State from the realm of international
; law.2
Similarly, Fawcett says:
It is perhaps more tempting to hold that the relationships between the
United Kingdom and protectorates, protected states and trust territories,
axe determined by international law.3
Although the practice of the United Kingdom regarding the legal
i nature of her treaty relations with territories and tribes under her
protection has been mentioned above in some detail, it remains an
open question whether it is possible to draw an analogy from this
practice in relation to the position of the treaties of the Shaikhdoms.
On this basis of analogy, it may be suggested that the United Kingdom
would not attribute to these treaties an international status on the
same footing as treaties concluded with fully independent States. It
also follows that she would, in cases of disputes arising between her

Secretary drew attention to other factors which undermined the legal value of the
treaties in question when he stated: ‘There has of course been a great alteration in
the circumstances of Nigeria since these Treaties were entered into seventy years
ago. I think we all know, the British Crown has for a great many years exercised
without question full jurisdiction over all the areas comprised in the Protectorate
of Nigeria, including the particular areas to which the various Treaties relate, and
has made provisions by various Orders in Council for the government of the whole
country.’ Pointing out the diminished authority of the Chiefs who signed the
Treaties in the past, the Colonial Secretary said: \ . . but they have long since
ceased to exercise the functions of government, and it is no longer possible to say
that there now exist authorities who can be regarded as effective successors to the
Nigerian parties to the Treaties.’ (See ibid., p. 42.)
1 See Report by the Resumed Nigeria Constitutional Conference, op. cit. The
general principle is that treaties concluded by the Crown arc considered as acts of
state which cannot be interpreted by British courts unless they affect the rights of a
British subject. See Hood Phillips, op. cit., p. 220.
1 Schwarzenbcrger, p. 94.
s Fawcett, Treaty Relations ...» op. cit., p. 91.