Page 200 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

!

138 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
While in the Ziat Ben Kiran case,
a claim advanced by Great Britain on behalf of a British protected person,
i for damages caused in respect of riot in Mclilla (in the Spanish Zone of
;
Morocco) on 3 November, 1919,
it was held that the claim ‘could not be entertained’. This was on the
ground that

I an international claim based on an alleged denial of justice cannot be /
entertained if the various instances of local jurisdiction have not been
exhausted.

‘This condition’, it was stated, ‘had not been fulfilled in the present
1 case.’1
It may be assumed on the authority of the above two cases that an
i
international claim advanced against a Gulf State cannot be accepted
by the government of such State, or by the British Government on its
behalf, if the rule of the exhaustion of the local remedies existing in
this State has not been complied with. This would, probably, be the
view most acceptable to the British Government. f
There can be no question, of course, that the apportionment of
the control of justice over foreigners in the Gulf States between the
British Government—through the system of foreign jurisdiction—and
the Rulers, who have their own courts of law, would in any manner
hamper the requirements of the exhaustion of local remedies in these
States on the part of the foreign claimant. Nor can it be presumed
that the allocation of a certain class of foreigners to the jurisdiction
of the Rulers’ Courts has any bearing whatever on the consequent
international responsibility of the British Government for injuries
sustained by this class of foreigners. The only difference in regard to
the position of this class of foreigners, from the standpoint of munici­
pal law, is that they will be required in the first place, to exhaust their
remedies by applying to the local Courts of the Rulers before they
can invoke the international responsibility of these Rulers or their
governments. It follows, therefore, that failure on the part of an alien
injured in a Gulf State to comply with the local remedies rule, may, J
except in those conditions limiting the application of the rule,2 give
the British Government ground to refuse to accept responsibility for
a claim arising from injuries sustained by this alien. According to
Starke, in order to decide ‘which authorities are to see to the fulfil­
ment’ of obligations arising from delinquencies of the protected State,
a reference must be made ‘to legal orders other than international

' Annual Digest, 1923-4, case No. 87. _on rit
2 For cases where the local remedy rule may be waived, see Freeman, op. cit.,
pp. 420-3; Briggs, op. cit., pp. 629 et seq.