Page 197 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 135
the question arises if in these circumstances, responsibility for denial
of justice sustained by an alien before the British courts in Muscat
is imputable to the British Government? There are two relevant,
though conflicting, considerations to be borne in mind. On the one
hand, it would appear that prima facie the conferment by the Sultan
of extra-territorial jurisdiction upon the British Government—as well
as upon other governments—is a sovereign act which does not affect
the independence of Muscat. Consequently, it would seem, from the
point of view of international law, that Muscat cannot escape responsi­
bility for derelictions of judicial institutions in her own territory by
the mere fact that these institutions are directly administered by the
British Government. On the other hand it may be argued, perhaps
more cogently, that while it is true that the Government of the Sultan
bears responsibility for denial of justice in its national courts, it seems
difficult to impose on this Government a similar responsibility for
derelictions of courts which are not under the authority of the Sultan.
In other words, it may be presumed that the British Government, by
obtaining the Sultan's agreement to the establishment of British
courts of justice in Muscat, has, by implication, indicated its desire
to bear alone responsibility for denial of justice in these courts. This
is so because the conferment of jurisdiction by the Sultan upon the
British Government carried with it not only rights but also duties and
obligations. Responsibility for denial of justice in courts established
under this jurisdiction is one aspect of these obligations.
3. Violation of contractual obligations; disputes regarding oil agree-
ments
Failure on the part of the Gulf States to respect or perform their
contractual obligations towards foreigners or foreign governments
can give rise, in the last resort, to their international responsibility.
It is generally agreed that there can be no violation of international
law for the mere breach of a contract by a government if such breach'
does not involve an arbitrary repudiation of this contract.1 It is
assumed that an alien who opted to enter into a contractual relation
with a foreign government has already agreed, by implication, to
settle all disputes regarding the interpretation or the application of
his contract in accordance with the municipal law of the government
in question. Accordingly, if an alien sustains injuries as a result of
violation of the provisions of his contract by a foreign government
which is a party to this contract, he has to institute a claim against this
government in its local courts.2 There is, therefore, no ground, at thjs
stage, for an international claim to be presented by the government of
the alien against the foreign government which is alleged to have
1 Freeman, op. cit., p. 110; Eagleton, op. cit., pp. 157-8; Dunn, op. cit., p. 164.
2 Freeman, op. cit., p. 112, n. (1).