Page 179 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

the present legal position 117
seems to be some authority in saying that, generally, such protected
States and protectorates remain neutral in a war in which the Crown
is a party, unless and until a declaration of war is separately made
by their own respective governments, or by the Crown, on their
own behalf.1 However, it is undeniable that the fact that the Crown is
responsible for the defence of such protected States against external
aggression makes it quite difficult, in practice, for the latter to observe
a strict neutrality in a war declared by the former on the same footing
as independent States which arc recognised to possess this right of
neutrality by international law. For example, it may be of practical
difficulty for protected Stales or protectorates of this kind to deny
the Crown, as a protecting Power, facilities for stationing troops or
war-like materials in their territories, since these facilities, it may be
contended, are part of the defence of such territories. In these circum­
stances, it may be suggested that such protected States, as long as they
do not declare themselves by unequivocal statements issued on their
behalf at war on the side of the Crown, may probably be able to
observe some limited measures of neutrality in the war declared by
the Crown. For example, they may not be required by the Crown to
raise an army or to participate militarily in its operations against the
enemy. Also, they may not be prohibited from trading with the
Crown's enemy in merchandise goods of non war-like nature.2
The view that a protected State or a protectorate in the real sense is
not necessarily a party in a war declared by the protecting Power
seems to find favour with a number of distinguished authorities, such
as Oppenheim,3 Wheaton,4 Keith5 and Westlake.6
However, it is remarkable that all the above authorities appear to
base their views regarding the position of a protectorate or a protected
State in a war declared by the protecting Power upon a single decision,
namely, the judgment of Dr Lushington in the Ionian Ships case
(1855).This case gave rise to the question whether the Ionianlslands, a
British protectorate between 1815 and 1863,7 became a party to the
Crimean War declared by Great Britain (and other States) against
Russia. The decision in that case was that the Ionian Islands remained
neutral in the War in question in spite of the fact that under the terms
of the Protectorate Great Britain had the right of making war and
1 The assumption that a British declaration of war does not automatically
operate in a sovereign Protected State is based on the judgment in the Ionian Ships
and on the views of text-book writers which will be explained below.
2 This is based on the judgment of the Ionian Ships, explained below.
3 Oppenheim, p. 139; Ibid., II; pp. 138-9, n. (2).
4 Wheaton, op. cit., pp. 87-8.
6 Keith, Dominions, op. cit., pp. 51-2.
* Westlake, Collected Papers on International Law (1914), pp. 181-2. See also
Hall, p. 29.
7 For the Ionian Islands legal position, sec above, p. 62.