Page 154 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

92 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
the treaties implies that they are of a perpetual nature, for almost all
the Rulers of the Shaikhdoms pledge themselves, ‘their heirs and
successors’, to observe fully the obligations contained in the treaties.1
However, it seems only reasonable to say that too much stress must
not be placed on the language of these treaties, since there is nothing
in the nature of treaties of protection between two Slates to suggest
that the arrangements under such treaties arc to remain in a per­
manently static position without being affected by the course of
events. According to Oppenheim, ‘all treaties must be interpreted im
according to their reasonable, in contradistinction to their literal
sense’.2 It may be true, however, to say that when a treaty is made
for the cession of territory it can be regarded as of a perpetual nature.
This is on the ground that the object of such a treaty is, in the words
of Hall, ‘to set up a permanent state of things, and not barely to
secure the performance of the act which forms the starting point of
that state'.3 But the treaties of the Shaikhdoms are not treaties of
cession. They are treaties of protection which were concluded at the
request of the Rulers themselves, as explained before.’1 If it is true,
therefore, that there is nothing in the nature of these treaties that
makes them perpetually binding, the question may be asked how,
and in what manner, can they be terminated?
It can be argued that, since these treaties were concluded by the
consent of both contracting parties—the Rulers and the British
Government—it is only logical to assume that their modification or
termination can be effective only by the consent of both contracting
parties. In his statement of 29 July 1957, on the British treaty relations
with the Shaikhdoms, the British Foreign Secretary appears to have
confirmed this principle when he stated that
Any change in the nature of these relations could not be determined by
Her Majesty’s Government only, but would be a matter for agreement
between Her Majesty’s Government and the Rulers concerned.5

This statement is significant in that it establishes, beyond any doubt,
that the question of terminating British treaty relations with the
Shaikhdoms does not lie solely within the jurisdiction of the British
Government. According to this statement the British Government
appears to regard these treaties as terminable on the basis of direct
negotiations with the Rulers concerned.
The principle of negotiation as a basis for the termination of treaties
with protectorates seems to have been accepted by the United King-

1 See Part One. 2 Oppenheim, p. 952.
I SwJJoutTof Comnwn*Delates, vol. 574, Written Answers, col. 107, 29 July

1957.