Page 193 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 131
The same view is reflected in French practice relating to the former
protectorates of Tunisia and Morocco.1
(c) Judicial decisions: The principle that acts and omissions of a pro­
tected Stale arc imputable to the protecting State has also been applied
in a number of decisions of international tribunals. For example, in
the Casablanca case between Germany and France, 1909,2 claims
were addressed to France in respect of occurrences in Morocco. And
in the Spanish Zone of Morocco Claims (Great Britain v. Spain), of
23 October 1924, it was held that Spain, as the protecting Power of the
Zone, was primarily responsible for the injuries suffered by British
nationals residing in that Zone.3 Furthermore, in the case Adolph
G. Sluder, before the American and British Claims Arbitration (1926),
the British Government appeared in its capacity as the State respon­
sible for the wrongs which were alleged to have been committed by
the former British protected State of Johore, ‘for whose acts the
British Government admitted responsibility’.4
The Gulf States
It may be assumed, on the basis of the above principles, that acts and
omissions of the Shaikhdoms are ipso facto imputable to the British
Government in its capacity as the protecting Power. Muscat, as a
State responsible for its own international relations, can be held
directly responsible for its own delinquencies. However, it seems that
the invocation of the international responsibility of Muscat by a
foreign State presents some practical difficulties owing to the fact
that it maintains diplomatic representation neither with the United
Nations nor with foreign States other than the British Government.5
It is true that by virtue of its long-standing treaties of friendship and
of its capitulatory rights in Muscat, the British Government has been
entrusted with certain duties in regard to the conduct of the foreign
affairs of the Government of the Sultan.6 In practice, the British
Government is now looking after the interests of the Sultan vis-a-vis
foreign Powers. However, there can be no ground to assume that the
British Government by agreeing to act as a representative of the
government of the Sultan internationally, would incur responsibility
for delinquencies of that government. The British Government cannot
accept responsibility for delinquencies of a State for whose foreign
affairs it is not responsible. It follows, therefore, that delinquencies
committed in Muscat are not ipso facto imputable to the British
1 Eaglcton, op. cit., pp. 37-8.
a For the Casablanca case of 22 May 1909, sec Scott, The Hague Court Reports
(1916), pp. 110-20.
3 Annual Digest, 1923-4, case No. 85.
4 For reference, sec below, p. 33.
6 Sec above, p. 67. 0 See above, pp. 67-8.