Page 194 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

132 THE LEGAL STATUS
OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
Government. Indeed the position of the British Government in assum­
ing certain duties in respect of the external affairs of the Sultan can be
assimilated to that of an agent who acts according to the instructions
of his principal without necessarily becoming a party to the con­
tractual relations between the principal and the third party.
How can international claims be presented by a claimant State against
Muscat ? It can be assumed that since by special arrangement with
the Sultan’s government, the British Government has been representing
the former in the international sphere, foreign States receiving injuries
from the government of Muscat can therefore present their claims
against that State through the diplomatic channels of the British
Government, which in turn may make representation on their behalf
to the government of the Sultan. Consequently, all negotiations for the
peaceful settlement of the claims in question may be conducted with
the government of the Sultan in this manner. It must be reiterated,
however, that the mediation of the British Government in any such
claims arising between the government of the Sultan and other
claimant States does not, in any manner, entail the responsibility of
the British Government for the former’s delinquencies. Nor does the
British Government, by acting as an intermediary in the disputes
between Muscat and foreign States, confer on Muscat more rights or
advantages than those actually possessed by the latter by virtue of her
present status in international law. For example, the signature of the
Optional Clause of the Statute of the International Court of Justice by
the British Government does not confer any benefits on Muscat should
she decide to appoint the British Government to act on her behalf in
a dispute between Muscat and a third State before the International
Court of Justice. In any such dispute Muscat has to sign the Optional
Clause herself.1

Kinds of acts and omissions which give rise to the international responsi­
bility of the Gulf States
1. Acts and omissions of the rulers and their governments
To what extent is responsibility borne by these States for injuries
sustained by foreigners in consequence of acts and omissions of their
Rulers or officials? For example, is responsibility arising from the
expropriation of alien property by a Ruler in his territory ipso facto
imputable to the British Government? If so, how can reparation be
made by the British Government for the damage sustained by the
alien concerned? It is difficult to show what attitude the British
Government would adopt if such a case arises, since there has hardly
been any precedent giving rise to the international responsibility of
the Shaikhdoms in this respect. As regards British practice in other
1 For an explanation, see below, pp. 143-4.