Page 162 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

i

100 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES

with it which arc concluded by the dependent entity arc without any legal
: value.1 }
i
He explains his statement by saying:
i In a word, the weakness of a treaty attributable to the dependent status
of a contracting party is generally such as to render voidable rather than void
: commitments with States other than the protector. The practice of nations
seemingly supports this conclusion.2
Hall, on the other hand, takes a different view. He says:
All contracts therefore are void which are entered into by such (protected)
States in excess of the powers retained by, or conceded to, them under their
existing relations with associated or superior States.3

As regards the United Kingdom Government’s practice, Lord McNair
■
states:
:
Whether treaties which a dependent State purports to conclude in defiance
of this incapacity or in excess of this limited capacity, as the case may be, are
1 ipso facto void or merely voidable at the instance of the dominant State,
is a question upon which it is believed the United Kingdom Government
has not found occasion to define its position.4
However, he maintains the view that this is a question
which does not admit of a general answer, since the precise terms and cir­
cumstances of the connection between the two States require analysis in
each case.6
In one instance, Lord McNair refers to the Opinion of the British
Law Officers of the Crown expressed on the validity of the Treaty of
27 April 1896, concluded by the South African Republic (known
formerly as the Transvaal Republic) in violation of its Convention of
1 Hyde, 2, p. 1377.
3 Ibid., p. 1378. According to Hyde, ‘In the course of the nineteenth century,
some States paid no nice regard to the conditions or relationship of dependency
upon Turkey of certain backward countries with which treaties were sought and
concluded.’ See ibid. See also for examples of such treaties, Hackworth. Digest of
International Law, vol. V (1943), pp. 153-4. It is stated here that in the case of the
United States of America Treaty of 1805 with Tripoli, the United States of America
took the view that ‘its treaty of 1805 with Tripoli was valid and binding although
it was made with the Regency of Tripoli at a time when Tripoli was semi-inde­
pendent. There was no indication that Turkey, the suzerain, was consulted.’
Moreover, Hyde says, ‘The relationship of Bulgaria to the Sultan of Turkey
roughly and perhaps vaguely set forth in the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, did not
serve greatly to deter the former from concluding various treaties with numerous
States. Such few objections as were raised by the suzerain generally proved to be
ineffectual.’ See Hyde, p. 1378. 3 Hall, p. 380
4 McNair, Treaties, p. 173. But see now the attitude of the United Kingdom as
shown in 1958, in the case of the Treaty concluded between Bahrain and Saudi
Arabia, below,’ pp. 104-6. 3 McNair, Treaties, p. 138.