Page 164 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

I

: 102 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
i view that they are merely voidable ‘is probably without a practical
; difference’. But lie sums up his view on this question thus:
As the question is one of status imposed not as the result of any general
operation of a rule of law but in consequence of a—usually bilateral-
}
- : treaty, it is probably unnecessary in this ease to follow what is apparently
the correct logical conclusion and to hold that a treaty concluded in disre­
:
gard of the contractual capacity of the dependent State is unalterably and
irremediably void. It is preferable to regard the absence of protest on the
; part of the superior State as equivalent to acquiescence amounting to a
renunciation of the limiting provisions of the original treaty.1
;
.:
Bilateral treaties
; Generally speaking, the only foreign State with which the Gulf
- Shaikhdoms have maintained treaty relations is Saudi Arabia. There
:
i exist in these Shaikhdoms no constitutional procedures for the con­
clusion or ratification of treaties. The Rulers of these Shaikhdoms are,
in fact, the sole authority from which the right to conclude treaties can
■
!
be derived.2 However, owing to their treaties with the United King­
dom, to which reference has been made, the Rulers are required to
obtain the approval of the United Kingdom’s Government before they
can commit themselves to any sort of treaties with foreign States. As
pointed out above, these treaties do not deprive them of the capacity
to conclude treaties, but they only limit their capacity to do so.3
The result is that if the Rulers conclude treaties with foreign States,
without obtaining the consent of the British Government, these
treaties do not, in the light of the preceding principles of international
law, possess international validity.
In connection with the consent of the British Government required
for the conclusion of treaties by the Rulers, there appears to be in
practice no special procedure by which this consent can be obtained.
This question, however, does not seem to present an important
. problem, since in concluding their treaties with Saudi Arabia, the
Shaikhdoms were, with only one exception which will be noted below,
always represented by the British Government. This may, perhaps, be
more clearly explained by referring to the following examples of the
particular procedure adopted in each treaty or agreement concluded
by an individual Shaikhdom:
1. Agreement between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, 16 November 19351
This agreement is entitled, ‘Exchange of Notes Between His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Saudi
Arabia Regarding Transit Dues at Bahrain, 16 November 1935.’

Sec International Law Commission, 1953, op. cit., p. 144.
2 Sec Chapter 1. 3 See Chapters 2 -5.
4 Treaty Series, No. 7 (1936), Cmd. 5168.