Page 239 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

IRAN'S CLAIM TO BAHRAIN 177
reiterated.1 To this, an elaborate reply, dated 18 February 1929, was
made by the British Foreign Secretary who contested the Persian
arguments juridically and historically.2
These two Persian Notes of 22 November 1927 and 2 August
1928, together with the British replies of 18 January 1928 and 18
February 1929, arc important for the purposes of this study of the
Persian claim to sovereignty over Bahrain because they embrace the
main British and Persian points of view on the question.
Legal analysis of the Iranian claim
From the above statement of facts, it will be seen that the essential
issues of law arc the following:
(1) Did Persia acquire title to Bahrain prior to 1783?
(2) If the answer is in the affirmative, did Persia at any time there­
after lose title to Bahrain?
As to (1), the grounds on which it may be said that Persia acquired
title to Bahrain arc: (a) occupation, and (b) conquest.3

(a) Occupation: Occupation as a mode of acquiring territory operates
on a territory which is terra nullius (i.e., not forming part of the
dominion of another State).4 There are two authoritative cases on the
acquisition of title by occupation, namely, the Clipper ton Island case
(1932), between Mexico and France, and the Eastern Greenland case
(1933), between Denmark and Norway.
The general principle accepted in these cases is that ‘besides the
animus occupandi, the actual, and not the nominal, taking of possession
is a necessary condition of occupation’.5 Therefore, there are two
necessary elements for the establishment of a valid title to sovereignty
by occupation, namely ‘the intention and will to exercise such
sovereignty and the manifestation of State activity'.6 This amounts to
effective occupation or ‘effective control’.7 Thus, it has been main­
tained that the fact that a territory has been under the authority of
another State is irrelevant if that State has abandoned the territory,
in the sense that it no more assumed jurisdiction over it.8 And it is
not necessary that the abandonment of an acquired territory should be
voluntary. It suffices if the other element, namely, the manifestation of
1 L.N.O.7., September 1928, pp. 1360-3. 2 Ibid., May 1929, pp. 790-3.
3 International law recognises five modes of acquiring legal title to a territory,
namely, occupation, conquest, cession, prescription or accretion. Sec Oppcnheim,
pp. 543-6; Hall, p. 125. Only occupation and conquest, as means of acquiring title
to territory, are relevant to this discussion.
4 Bricrly, p. 151; Schwarzenbergcr, pp. 296-7.
6 Arbitral Award on the Sovereignty of the Clipperton Island A.J.I.L., 26 (1932),
6 Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (1933), P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 53, pp. 62-3.
7 Schwarzenbergcr, pp. 298-9; Waldock, C. H. M., ‘Disputed Sovereignty in the
Falkland Dependencies’, B. Y.I.L., 25 (1948), pp. 334-5.
8 Schwarzenbergcr, p. 297.
N