Page 201 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 139
law'.1 ‘In effect,* Starke says, ‘a double reference is required, first. . .
to the law governing the relations between the protector and vassal
slate, and then to the law of the subordinate state. The agencies of
. . . the vassal state are, qua performance of international obligations,
really agencies of those entities,.. . which alone have an autonomous
international position.*2
Conclusion
Having discussed the various aspects of the Shaikhdoms’ delinquencies
and the degree and nature of imputability of their responsibility to the
Government of the United Kingdom, the question arises whether
under some exceptional circumstance responsibility for these wrongs
ceases to be imputable to the United Kingdom. In particular, this
question brings to the fore the problem of Arab States’ economic
boycott of Israel. Are legislative and economic measures enforced by
the Rulers in their territories against Israel ipso facto imputable to
the United Kingdom?
Although it is not known whether the Government of Israel has
delivered any such protest to the United Kingdom, it may be possible
to say that such protests do not lie against the United Kingdom. The
latter cannot, therefore, be held responsible for the Rulers' action in
this respect. This is because the United Kingdom has no power to
prevent the Rulers from prosecuting measures which are part of their
own domestic jurisdiction and sovereignty so long as these measures
do not cause injuries to foreign nationals in the Shaikhdoms, in the
sense that they give rise to their international responsibility. It is
clear that measures taken by the Rulers against Israel, trivial as they
are, do not give rise to their international responsibility.3 Moreover,
the United Kingdom has no power, in law, to rescind the Rulers'
decrees imposing the Israeli boycott in their territories, since the
United Kingdom’s legislation has no application in the Shaikhdoms
which are independent governments.4 The United Kingdom, for her
part, does not seem to have raised objections to the functions of the
Israeli Boycott Offices which are established in most of the Shaikh­
doms and which are affiliated to the Israeli Boycott Committee of the
Arab League.5
However, although it may be argued that the boycott measures
taken by the Shaikhdoms against Israel do not give rise to their inter­
national responsibility, the question arises whether a third State
1 Starke, op. cit., p. 116. 2 Ibid.
* It is to be noted that the Jews who live in the Gulf possess the citizenships of
the Shaikhdoms concerned. 4 See above, p. 83.
6 See Arab Observer; The Middle East News Magazine, 26 February 1961, p. 5,
where Dr Ayedi, Commissioner General for the Economic Boycott of Israel,
states: * ... the authorities in these emirates had assured him that regulations for
the economic boycott of Israel were being strictly observed by them.*