Page 182 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

120 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
this Convention, it should be possible for her to accede to it under
the provisions of Articles 139 and 140.1
(ii) The Shaikhdoms
By their treaties with the United Kingdom the Shaikhdoms have
dearly bound themselves to ‘abstain from all maritime aggressions
of every description, from the prosecution of war, piracy and slavery
:
by sea-----’2 They have also agreed to appoint the British Resident in
the Gulf to supervise all matters connected with the observance of the
peace and tranquillity of the Gulf waters at all times. Likewise, by
i
these treaties the British Government has assumed the responsibility
of defending the Shaikhdoms against external aggression, as pointed
out above. In these circumstances, it is clear tha?the Shaikhdoms are
not free to go to war against the wishes of the British Government.
Consideration may, however, be given to the question of what laws
would apply in the event that hostilities were to break out between the
United Kingdom and one of the Shaikhdoms. It seems doubtful
whether the laws of war govern a conflict arising between two States
in protectorate relations. The question whether a conflict between a
protected and a protecting State can be regarded as an international
conflict depends on various factors, one of which is the extent to which
the protected State is accorded recognition as a belligerent power by
either the protecting State or by third States.3 This is on the ground
that only States are, generally, recognised as possessing the right of
belligerency. ‘To be at war, the contention must be between two
States,’ says Oppenheim.4
Regarding the Shaikhdoms, it may be suggested, in the light of the
above principles, that the question whether an armed conflict between
them and the United Kingdom can be regarded as war depends on a
number of factors. These are inter alia: (a) the extent to which this
conflict presents a threat to the international peace within the meaning
of Articles 35 and 39 of the United Nations Charter, and (b) the
extent to which the Shaikhdoms’ belligerent status is recognised by
third States or by the British Government. So long, however, as an
1 Treaty Scries, Misc., No. 4 (1950), Cmd. 8033, p. 85.
2 See Chapters 2-5.
3 For recognition of belligerency generally, see Chen, Ti-Chiang, The Interna­
tional Law of Recognition (1951), p. 350; Briggs, op. cit., pp. 991-2.
4 See Oppenheim, II, p. 203; Westlake, II, p. 1. But sec Oppenheim, II, pp.
248-50, where examples are given of wars which broke out in 1877 between vassal
states under Turkish suzerainty, such as Serbia and Roumania, and Westlake, p. 24,
where the writer docs not seem to exclude the possibility of existence of war be­
tween protected and protecting States. He thus cites the war between Madagascar
and France, in 1895, as an example. But he further adds that ‘if by the arrange­
ment between them the protecting power has a larger share in the executive
authority of the protected state, the subjects of the latter may not be able to
organise such a war without being insurgents in their own country’.