Page 196 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

134 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
in the Shaikhdom against which the claim is primarily presented have
been exhausted, unsatisfactorily, by the claimant.

2. Denial of justice before the courts of the Gulf States
!
This requires a discussion of the extent to which acts of the judiciary
in the Gulf States give rise to their international responsibility.
Responsibility of the protecting Power for denial of justice sustained
by a foreigner in the courts of the protected State was established in
! the Spanish Zone of Morocco case, to which reference has been made
above.1
The discussion of the problem of denial of justice in its relation to
I the Gulf States and the degree of imputability of responsibility arising
from the wrongs of the judiciary in these States to the British Govern­
ment requires a special distinction between two cases: (a) where
denial of justice is sustained by an alien before the courts of the
:
Rulers, and (b) where denial of justice is sustained by an alien before
! the British courts established under the system of foreign jurisdiction.2
Thus, in regard to the Shaikhdoms, it would appear that while in
! the case of (a) the British Government would, probably, bear
' ") ‘vicarious’ responsibility only, in the case of (b) British responsibility
i
would be original. This is on the ground that responsibility arises in
the latter case from the wrongs of a machinery of justice for whose
administration the British Crown is directly responsible. Consequently,
the Rulers of the Shaikhdoms would appear to bear direct responsi­
bility for denial of justice sustained by aliens before their courts only.
The practical importance of the above distinction arises in connection
with the question: Who is directly answerable for reparation of in­
juries sustained by an alien in a claim for denial of justice in the
territories of the Shaikhdoms? It may be presumed that since the
wrongs of the British courts in the Shaikhdoms cannot, in law, be
imputed to the Rulers, these Rulers are, therefore, not answerable for
reparation of the wrongs of these courts. Responsibility in this respect
rests with the British Government alone.
In regard to Muscat, it is, of course, clear that no responsibility for
denial of justice in the courts of the Sultan is imputable to the British
Government. This is so on account of the independent status of
Muscat among the other Gulf States. However, owing to the fact that
in this State there also exists a system of extra-territorial jurisdiction,3
1 See above, p. 131. ........................
2 The British Government still maintains extra-territorial jurisdiction m the
territories of the Shaikhdoms. (It was relinquished in Kuwait just before her inde­
pendence.) This foreign jurisdiction, obtained with the consent of the Rulers
concerned, is much limited today and it applies only to non-Muslim foreigners
and Commonwealth citizens. See above, p. 10.
3 But see above, p. 19. British extra-territorial jurisdiction in Muscat was re-
linquished as from January 1967.