Page 160 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

98 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF states

protection and no more. In other words, the withdrawal of British
recognition from a ruler docs not automatically deprive him of his
inherent title as a ruler. In the ease Mighel/ v. Sultan ofJohore( 1894),
Kay, L. J. analysed the obligations arising from a treaty of protection
concluded between the Sultan of Johorc, a ruler of one of the former
States of Malay, and the British Government as follows:

The Agreement of the Sultan not to enter into treaties with other Powers
docs not seem to me to be an abnegation of his right to enter into such
treaties, but only a condition upon which the protection stipulated for is
given. If the Sultan disregards it, the consequence may be the loss of that
protection . . .l
By way of conclusion, it may be stated that if there is any right for
the United Kingdom to depose, by the use of force, a ruler who disre­
gards his treaties of protection, this appears to be a matter of power,
:
as it has been illustrated in the Lahej controversy. The legal problem
; in terms of strict law remains unresolved.
:
I
Treaties with third states
The question to be considered here is whether the Gulf States have the
capacity to conclude treaties with foreign States. At the outset, it is
necessary to distinguish between the position of the Sultanate of
Muscat on the one hand, and the Shaikhdoms on the other.

(i) Treaty-making capacity of Muscat
Muscat, not being under the protection of the United Kingdom or any
other State, has full capacity to conclude treaties or international
agreements with foreign Powers. It has, in fact, concluded treaties
not only with the United Kingdom, but also with France, the Nether­
lands, United States of America and India. British treaties with
Muscat arc published in both the British official treaty series and the
United Nations treaty series.2
Jt has been argued, however, that, in some respects, the treaty­
making power of the Sultan of Muscat is limited. Owing to the pro­
visions of the Agreement of 1891,3 he cannot conclude treaties with
v foreign Powers the object of which is ‘to cede, sell ... or otherwise
give for occupation . . . the dominions of Muscat and Oman or any
of their dependencies*. However, there is no basis for this argument
now, because the Agreement of 1891 which had long been regarded
by the parties as obsolete, was already formally terminated by ex­
change of letters in 1958.4

i [1894] 1 Q.B., 149, at pp. 161-2. 2 Sec above, pp. 52-7.
3 See above, p. 48. 4 See above, p. 69.