Page 199 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 137
arbitrarily confiscated its property, this Government would then have,
probably, to act in a double capacity (i.c., both as a claimant State
and as a State which is ‘vicariously’ responsible for the wrong of the
Ruler). In other words, it would have to redress claims by and against
itself which seems to be, practically, absurd. This is actually a case of
balancing the right of the British Government to intervene in favour
of ‘the protection of nationals who have their economic activities in
foreign countries’ with its duty to protect the interests of the Ruler
in its capacity as a protector.1

The rule of the exhaustion of local remedies: the extent of the operation
of this rule in the Gulf States
It seems necessary to supplement the above discussion by referring,
briefly, to a problem which has been very closely associated by writers
and States with international claims. This problem is referred to as
‘the rule of the exhaustion of local remedies’. And it is often contended
that the actual fulfilment of this ‘rule’ is a ground upon which an inter­
national claim can be based.2
Is the exhaustion of the local legal remedies in the Gulf States a
pre-condition, or a necessary step, for a foreign claimant or his
government to advance an international claim against these States or,
vicariously, against the British Government? There are at least two
cases which seem to shed light on this question, namely, Adolph G.
Sluder, 1925, and Ziat Ben Kiran (Great Britain v. Spain), 29 Decem­
ber 1924. These two cases are relevant in that {a) they both represent
claims arising from wrongs committed in a protected State, and (b)
they both establish the principle that local remedies available in the
protected territory must first be exhausted before any international
claim could be advanced against the protecting Power in respect of
the delinquencies of the government of such territory.
In the Adolph G. Studer case, the Tribunal appeared to have
accepted the British Government’s argument (the British Government
admitted responsibility in this case for the action of the Ruler of the
protected State of Johore) that:
. . . the legal remedies which are open to the claimant in the Sultan’s court
must be exhausted before any question of treating the matter through the
diplomatic channel or referring it to arbitration can be considered.3
1 For a discussion of whether there are legal grounds for intervention by the
State whose subjects have as shareholders in a British corporation ‘suffered damage
by the act of a foreign State inflicting damage on the property of the corporation’,
see Bagge, Algot, ‘Intervention on the Ground of Damage Caused to Nations,
with Particular Reference to Exhaustion of Local Remedies and the Rights of
Shareholders’, B.7./.L., 34 (1958), pp. 162,172-5.
2 Freeman, op. cit., pp. 404, 423; Bagge, op. cit., p. 165; Briggs, op. cit., pp.
629-32. 3 Nielsen, Report, op. cit., p. 550.