Page 170 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

108 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE
■ ARABIAN GULF STATES
(b) Past am! present practice regarding accession by the Gulf States
to international agreements
The United Kingdom had in the past applied certain international
conventions to the Arabian Gulf region, without specifically mention­
ing that she was doing so on behalf of the Slates concerned in that
region.1 For example, in the International Sanitary Convention,
:
signed by the United Kingdom in Paris on 17 January 1917, a provi­
sion was incorporated regarding the Arabian Gulf States generally.
i This provision was made in Article 83 (Section VI, Part 2) which
: stated:
- !
1 La rcglcmcntalion sanitairc telle qu'clle cst institutec par les articles de
la presente Convention, cn cc qui conccrnc 1c Golfc Pcrsique . . . et scs
ports.2
i
Similarly, Article VI, No. 3 (Ch. II) of the International Convention
Relative to the Control of the Trade in Arms and Ammunitions signed
■
by the United Kingdom on 10 September 1919 provided:
La Zone maritime comprcnant 1c Golfc Pcrsique . . . et ses ports seront
subordonnes a l’observation des prescriptions analogues miscs cn vigucur
■4 par le Gouvernement qui excrce Pautorite.3
i
i It may be observed that in this Convention the Shaikhdoms were
not mentioned separately. Subsequently, Muscat acceded to the Con­
vention as a separate party/1
i
Later, in 1949, the Shaikhdoms became separate parties to the
International Wheat Agreement which they signed on 29 March
1 It should be remarked again that this discussion docs not include Muscat,
since as an independent State she has full capacity to enter into international
agreements without the requirement of the consent of the United Kingdom. As
regards Kuwait, the discussion is applicable to her only during the time when she
was still a British protected Stale.
2 Sec Hcrtslct, Commercial Treaties, vol. 27 (1917), p. 337.
3 Ibid., vol. 29 (1919), p. 124.
4 Hcrtslct, op. cit., p. 124. Note that there is nothing in practice to prevent
protectorates becoming separate parties to international organisations. However,
such practice appears to have been restricted to certain types of protectorates —the
International Protectorates—which arc regarded as possessing certain attributes
of international personality. For example, the former Protectorates of Tunisia
and Morocco were separate parties to a number of International Conventions, such
as: (1) Sanitary Convention of 21 June 1926; (2) International Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property of 2 June 1934; (3) Convention of the Unification
of the Methods of Analysis of Wines in Industrial Commerce, 5 June 1935.
For a fuller account about the procedure of accession to these Conventions, see
Hudson, International Legislations, vol. Ill (1925-27), pp. 1903-4; Ibid., vol. VI
(1932-4), pp. 307-71; Ibid., vol. VII (1935-7), pp. 88-9. For the separate member­
ships of the Protectorates of Tunisia and Morocco in the Convention on Anti-
Diphlhcritic Scrum, signed at Paris, 1 August 1930, sec The League of Nations,
Treaty Series, No. 2932, vol. CXXVIII, 1932, p. 9.