Page 153 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

run PRESENT LEGAL POSITION 91
and the Shaikhdoms, object to any unilateral reference of these
treaties to an international tribunal on the ground that the customary
rules of international law regarding the interpretation of treaties do
not apply to treaties which, in her view, have no international stand­
ing.
However, there arc a number of factors which operate to exclude
the treaties of the Shaikhdoms from the same category as those of
tribal chiefs of colonial protectorates. In contradistinction to the
treaties of the tribal chiefs, which are described as no more than
‘public contracts' concluded ‘under the municipal law of the colonial
power concerned', the treaties with the Shaikhdoms acknowledge,
both expressly and by implication, the sovereignty and the inter­
national personality of the Rulers.1 Therefore, the result is that while
tribal chiefs are treated as no more than subjects of the Crown, the
Rulers of the Shaikhdoms are regarded as sovereigns of independent
States under British protection or as ‘States in special treaty relations
with the British Government’.2 Licbesny appears to entertain the
view that since these Shaikhdoms still possess most of the attributes
of sovereignty, their treaties may, therefore, be placed ‘in a special
category somewhat similar to that of the French Protectorate Treaties
with Tunisia and Morocco.3 Consequently, it is suggested that these
treaties should not be dismissed as having no binding force under
international law whatsoever.1
Having considered the legal value of the treaties of the Shaikhdoms
on the international plane, the question arises what legal conse­
quences might follow from the unilateral abrogation or the disregard
of these treaties?
(a) The uni lateral abrogation of treaties
According to Oppenheim, ‘A treaty may terminate in four different
ways: it may expire, or be dissolved, or become void, or be cancelled.'5
The question as to how and when a protected State can bring to an
end its treaties of protection with another State is a difficult one. In
the first place it is necessary to consider the question whether treaties
between protected and protecting States are terminable by notice, and
if so, in what circumstances, and what procedure is required for their
termination?
The treaties of the Shaikhdoms appear to provide no solution to this
question; they embody no provisions concerning their termination or
their replacement, after a period of time, by new agreements. On the
contrary, there seem to be grounds for suggesting that the language of

See Part One. 2 See above, pp. 78-9. 3 Licbesny, op. cit., p. 167.
4 Ibid. It is to be noted, however, that unlike the treaties with Morocco and
Tunisia, the treaties with the Shaikhdoms have not been defined by an international
tribunal. 6 Oppenheim, pp. 936-7.