Page 225 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

THU FRAMEWORK OF THE UNITED NATIONS 163
recognised de facto by five States Members of the United Nations,
namely Britain, the United States, France, Holland and India. How­
ever, the fact that Muscat docs not maintain diplomatic relations with
foreign States, that she is still represented internationally by the
United Kingdom, and that she still maintains treaties of alliance and
friendship with the United Kingdom which derogate from her political
independence,1 could be regarded by States Members of the United
Nations as grounds for opposing Muscat’s application for membership
in the United Nations. The practice of the United Nations, in this
respect, shows that on a number of occasions applications for mem­
bership in the Organisation were opposed both in the Security Council
and in the General Assembly on the grounds that the applicants either
had no diplomatic representations with some States or group of
States, or that they were bound by treaties of alliance which deprived
them of their ‘territorial integrity and political independence’.2
With regard to the Shaikhdoms, it can be stated that because (a)
the requirements of the Charter for membership are largely subjective,
and (b) these are not States in customary international law (they lack
the capacity to enter into relations with other States), they are, there­
fore, not entitled to membership in the United Nations.
It is true, however, that there were among the original Members of
the United Nations which took part in the United Nations Conference
on the International Organisation at San Francisco, in April and June
1945, countries, such as India, the Philippines,3 Ukraine and White
Russia,4 which lacked full ‘statehood’ or ‘independence all round’.5

1 Sec above, pp. 47-9, 159.
2 For example, in 1946 and 1947, objections were made by the Soviet Union
to membership of Ireland, Portugal, Transjordan (Jordan) and Siam on the ground
that these countries had no diplomatic representations with the Soviet Union.
For a fuller account of the debates on this question, see U.N.S.C., 1st year, 2nd
series, 56th mtg, 29 Aug. (1946), pp. 81-97. On admission of new members gener­
ally, see U.N.S.C., Suppl. No. 4, 28 Aug. (1946), pp. 17-148; Humber, op. cit.,
p. 102; Y.U.N. (1946-7), pp. 417, 569-73. .
In the United Nations’ questionnaire sent to the Government of Transjordan
following its application for membership of 26 June 1946 Transjordan was asked
to show the effect of its Treaty of Alliance of 22 March 1946 with the United
Kingdom on the maintenance of its ‘territorial integrity and political independence’.
See U.N.S.C., 1st year, 2nd Series, Suppl. No. 4, 28 Aug (1946), p. 5. For Trans­
jordan’s reply, see ibid.. Annex 19, p. 145.
3 According to Russell, during the Malta and Yalta Conferences the discussion
of the draft Constitution of the present Charter did not take into account the
‘anomalous position of India and the Philippines as signers of the Declaration by
the United Nations despite their non-self-governing status ...’ Sec Russell, op. cit.,
pp. 351 (footnote), 354.
4 With regard to the initial membership of the two Soviet Republics, the Ukraine
and Byelo-Russia, the issue, says Russell, was clearly a political one; it was based
on the commitments given by President Roosevelt to the Soviet Government
during the Yalta Conference. Sec Russell, op. cit., pp. 631-2.
6 Oppcnhcim, p. 119.