Page 244 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

182 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
However, it may be argued that the legality of the acquisition of title
to Bahrain by the fUtubi Arabs on the ground of their conquest of it
in 1783 can be doubted, since the war between them and Persia was
not ‘a war between two States’. And thus, the requirement of conquest
as a mode of loss of sovereignty (i.e. as being a war between two States
whereby ‘by reason of the defeat of one of them sovereignty over
territory passes from the loser to the victorious State’)1 was not
satisfied. Although it cannot be doubted that the conquest of Bahrain
by the rUtubi Arabs was not a conquest by a State in the international
sense, there seems to be, nevertheless, no lack of evidence to the effect
that the 'Utubis were not, at the time, mere ‘invaders’ who belonged
to no land, but the actual rulers and overlords of the settlement of
Zubarah in the peninsula of Qatar.2 At any rate, the fact that the
rUtubis (the predecessors of the present reigning family of Al-Khali-
fah) did not conquer Bahrain in the name of an established State in
international law, does not seem to affect the present legal status of the
island, the independence of which has been continuously maintained
from Persia since the date of its conquest in 1783.3
(6) Assertion of independence by Bahrain: It can, safely, be contended
that Persia has lost her title to Bahrain as a result of the assertion by
the latter of her independence during past years. The argument
introduced by Persia that the recognition of the original owner is
required for rendering lawful a change of sovereignty over a territory
belonging to that owner seems to be untenable.4 What seems to be
essential in this case- is, actually, the de facto establishment of the
independence of the territory itself, irrespective of the recognition or
the assent of its original sovereign. If, for instance, a dominion revolts
against its colonial regime and succeeds in overthrowing that regime
and establishing a sufficiently stable national government, it can be
presumed that a change of sovereignty in favour of the new govern­
ment has been effected. It follows, therefore, that
if the recognition of such change of sovereignty was given by the Powers,
even if the owner was not among them, the territory would be regarded as
an independent sovereign state.6

1 Legal Status of Greenland (1933), op. cit., p. 47.
2 See Bombay Selections, ‘Historical Sketch of the Uttoobce Tribe Arabs,
1716-1817’, by F. Warden, pp. 362-5. It can be seen from this document that the
'LJtubis were originally the rulers of Zubarah, and that the conquest of Bahrain
by them from the Persian garrison in Bahrain was in retaliation of a former attack
which was dispatched against their country, Zubarah, by the Persian governor of
Bahrain, Shaikh Nasir. , , „
3 See below, pp. 184-6 for other factors on which Persia may be regarded as
having lost her title to the island.
4 See above, p. 180.
6 Khadduri, op. cit., p. 637. See also Oppenheim, p. 579.