Page 205 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 143

(b) Signature of the Optional Clause in favour of Muscat
The question whether the signature of the Optional Clause by the
United Kingdom binds her in favour of Muscat involves, no doubt,
some complications. As explained elsewhere, Muscat is not a protected
State, but the British Government has ‘certain duties’ in regard to the
external affairs of Muscat. Muscat, in spite of her international status,
is neither a member of the United Nations nor a party to the Statute
of the International Court of Justice.1
However, the United Nations Charter makes provisions in Article
93 (2) for a State which is not a Member of the United Nations to
become a party to the Statute, certain conditions being satisfied. In
accordance with this provision Switzerland, for instance, became a
party to the Statute in 1947, while Liechtenstein became a party to it
in 1950.2 According to Oppenheim,
the importance of becoming a party to the Statute lies, inter alia, in the fact
that only a State which is a«.party to the Statute can effectively become
signatory to the Optional Clatfse of Article 36 of the Statute and thus, by
accepting the reciprocal obligations, secure for itself the benefits of the
obligatory jurisdiction of the Court.3

It is clear that Muscat, as an independent State, can secure her admis­
sion as a party to the Statute under the above provisions and, there­
fore, become a signatory of the Optional Clause even though she is
not a member of the United Nations.
But quite aside from the above procedure, Muscat is entitled in
accordance with the resolution of the Security Council of 1946, to
sign the Optional Clause at any time. It is, however, provided that
‘such signature cannot be relied upon against States which are parties
to the Statute unless they specifically agree’.4 Moreover, the same
resolution opens the door for States which are not parties to the
Statute ‘to become parties to disputes before the Court by accepting
its jurisdiction with reference either to a particular dispute or to all
disputes or particular classes of them’.5 The State of Hyderabad made
a declaration under the above provision in which it accepted com­
pulsory jurisdiction of the Court in respect of its dispute with India
‘concerning the interpretation of the principal Agreement, concluded
in 1947, governing the relations between the two countries’.0
Consequently, Muscat, without even choosing to become a party
to the Statute under Article 93 (2) of the United Nations Charter, can
at any time that she becomes a party to a dispute with a foreign
State—whether in connection with espousing claims of her nationals

1 See p. 67. 2 Oppenheim, II, p. 53.
3 Ibid., pp. 53-4. 4 For this resolution, see Oppenheim, II, p. 54.
6 Ibid. 6 Ibid., p. 54, n. (2).