Page 208 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

146 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
that it should not be implied that because ‘many protected States
: within the British Empire and their Heads enjoy in British Courts, a
degree of stale immunity similar to that which is customarily accorded
: to foreign States and their Heads’, such States possess ‘international
:
personality’. Immunity accorded to such Stales, he continues, is ‘a
matter of British constitutional law and not of international law’.1
:
Similarly, Keith confirms this British judicial practice in his comment
on Duff Development v. Ke/antan [1924], when he states:
From an imperial point of view, the case is interesting as reaffirming the
fact that, although the foreign policy of Malay States is entirely in British
hands, and although in varying measure their administration is conducted
j
under British guidance, yet they remain genuine independent States for
purposes of private international law.2
It should be pointed out, however, that from the point of view of
British constitutional law, jurisdictional immunity before British
courts is accorded only to sovereigns and governments of protected
States as such; African chiefs of colonial protectorates, who unlike
sovereigns of protected States are not regarded as possessing sovereign
rights, are, therefore, denied immunity before British courts. A case
in point is that of Chief Tschekodi Khama v. S. Ratshosa and Others
[1931],3 in which a letter was issued ‘on behalf of the Secretary
of State for the Dominions to the effect that the appellant was
not recognised by His Majesty’s Government as having sovereign
rights’.4
In connection with the Gulf Shaikhdoms,5 it may be assumed that
owing to their sovereign status, they would be treated as immune
from the jurisdiction of British courts, in accordance with the principle
applied to the former Malay States. Therefore, they would clearly
come within the scope of Dicey’s rule which states:
The Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action or other proceedings
against (1) any foreign State, or the head of government or any department
of the government of any foreign State.®
Moreover, Dicey specifically includes within the scope of this rule
‘any State under the protection of Her Majesty’. ‘And the expression
1 McNair, Opinions, 1, p. 23, n. 1. . . .
N
2 Keith, A. B., ‘Notes on Imperial Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction in Respect
of Sovereign States under British Protection’, Journal of Comparative Legislation
and International Law, 5 (1923), p. 127.
3 [1931] A.C. 784.
^ p 735
6 Muscat is excluded from this discussion because, on account of her full inde­
pendence, her immunity before British courts is less doubtful. As regards Kuwait,
the discussion deals with her status as a British protected State (i.e., before her
Ml^tZcol}iaofLaWs, 7.h ed. (1958), Rule No, 17, p. 129.