Page 210 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

148 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
. . . that the courts would not implead a foreign sovereign, and would not
by their process, whether or not the sovereign was a party to the proceed­
ings, seize or detain property which was his, or of which he was in possession
or control. And Viscount Simonds had later (at p. 396) said that ‘property’
was not to be confined to valuables but included contract debts or other
choses in action.
Furthermore, in upholding the Ruler’s sovereign right to cancel by
decree the agreement with the plaintiff, Mr Justice Waller stated:
It was agreed that the Ruler of Ras al Khaimah was an independent sove-
reign. Although the plaintiff made the first approaches, the stamps wcrc
ordered by a letter from the Ruler to Harrisons. Harrisons continued to
deal with the plaintiff until the formal order by the Crown Agents was
made on behalf of the Ruler on August 11 .l
(b) Position of British Protected States before foreign courts
The problem of jurisdictional immunities of Rulers of the Gulf
States becomes more difficult when one considers the position of these
Rulers before foreign courts. The question arises whether such courts
would extend to the Rulers of the Gulf States sovereign immunities
similar to those which are usually extended in international law to
sovereigns of independent States?
The general practice in America and in some continental countries
has been in favour of extending jurisdictional immunities to semi­
sovereign entities under their own protection. Some of these countries
have even gone as far as to accord immunities to some of their colonial
dependencies.2 Concerning the position of semi-sovereign States under
the protection of third States before the courts of these countries, the
practice has also shown that some of these countries do, in fact,
extend immunity to such semi-sovereign States. The general principle
upon which immunity to such semi-sovereign entities has been ac­
corded in continental countries is that ‘the entity claiming the im­
f a person of international law’.3 A reference to United States practice
munity need not be a “State” in the traditional sense, but it must be
shows that the question of determining sovereign immunities of

1 By a letter dated 12 August, the Ruler ‘informed the plaintiff that the Agree­
ment was cancelled, and that a decree to that effect had been made on August 11\
The Times, 24 September 1965, p. 15.
2 Sucharitkul, S., State Immunities and Trading Activities (1959), p. 109, n. 23.
According to the author, States ‘have granted immunities to colonial dependencies
of foreign States on the ground that the actions in fact impleaded the foreign
governments’. On United Kingdom’s practice in this respect, Dicey states: ‘But
if an entity of this sort is not entitled to immunity qua a foreign State, it may well
be so entitled qua a part of the State under whose protection it is.’ See Dicey,
°^3 AUcih E. W., The Position of Foreign States Before National Courts, Chiefly
in Continental Europe (1933), p. 239.