Page 204 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

142 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES

Settlement of claims of nationals of the Gulf States through the machi-
nery of the International Court of Justice
It is relevant to discuss here whether the British Government can
invoke the jurisdiction of the International Court for the settlement of
such claims. Since the adjudication of disputes by the Court depends
on the acceptance by the parties to the disputes (i.c., the two States)
of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, through signature of the
Optional Clause of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, the question
arises whether the signature of this Clause by the United Kingdom
binds her in favour of the Gulf States.
!
(a) Signature of the Optional Clause in favour of the Shaikhdoms
; There seems to be no difficulty in saying that the United Kingdom, by
virtue of her international status and by virtue of her signature of the
:
Optional Clause, is the only State which is capable of presenting
! international claims in favour of nationals—or governments—of the
Shaikhdoms for settlement by the organs of the International Court.
As mentioned before, the responsibility of the protecting State in
espousing claims of nationals of a State under its protection ‘proceeds
1
from the fact that the protecting State alone represents the protected
territory in its international relations’.1 And so far as claims presented
to the International Court by the protecting State on behalf of the
protected State are concerned, Shabtai Rosenne states that
Article 35 (2) of the Statute does not, in as many words, limit the rights
it gives only to independent States . . .2

Examples of State practice whereby claims were presented to the
International Court by the protecting State partly on its behalf and
V national personality’, though still lacking full independence, can be
partly on behalf of political units enjoying ‘some recognisable inter­
found without difficulty. Thus the decision of the Court in the Rights
of the United States Nationals in Morocco, 1952, is a case in point. In
this case, France made it clear that she was proceeding in the case
both on her behalf and in her capacity as a protecting State. She also
expressed her willingness to accept the decision of the Court ‘as binding
■ X upon France and Morocco’.3
i In conclusion, it may be submitted, in the light of the foregoing
precedents, that the United Kingdom’s signature of the Optional
Clause binds her in favour of the Shaikhdoms.

‘The Incidence of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies’, B.Y.I.L., 35 (1959),
p. 100.
1 Annual Digest, 1923-4, case No. 85.
2 Rosenne, Shabtai, The International Court of Justice (1957), p. 235.
3 jcj Reports, 1952, pp. 178-80. And see Rosenne, op. cit., pp. 235-6.