Page 247 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

IRAN’S CLAIM TO BAHRAIN 185
is entitled to sovereignty over it as against another ‘State which,
though originally possessing the same territory, had neglected it’.1
The majority of writers, as explained above, accept prescription as
part of international law. Leading cases on prescription, such as the
British Guiana Arbitration (1899),2 between Great Britain and Vene­
zuela, and the Chamizal Arbitration (1910-11),3 between the United
States of America and Mexico, show that States have recognised pre­
scription as a valid principle of international law. Still more important
authorities on the law of prescription are the decisions of the Permanent
Court of Arbitration in the Island of Palmas case (1928),4 between the
United States and the Netherlands, and of the Permanent Court of
International Justice in the Eastern Greenland case (1933),5 between
Denmark and Norway. In these two cases it was accepted that the
effective peaceful and continuous display of authority in a territory
establishes a valid sovereignty over that territory. In the Island of
Palmas, Judge Huber confirmed the principle of acquisitive prescrip­
tion when he stated in his judgment that the Netherlands Government
had proved ‘continuous and peaceful display of State authority
during a long period of time’ on the Palmas Island.6 In another part
of his judgment, Judge Huber held that the principle of ‘continuous
and peaceful display of authority would prevail even over a prior
definitive title’.7 This can be taken to mean that title by prescription
overrides any other title based on occupation or conquest.
It should be mentioned that some writers object to the principle of
prescription mainly on the ground that there is ‘no fixed time laid by
international law within which a title by prescription could be estab­
lished’.8 But against this, Lautcrpacht, as quoted by Johnson, argues
that the lack of a fixed period of time for the operation of the doctrine of
acquisitive prescription in international law is no more fatal to that doctrine
than is the absence of a settled rule regulating the rate of interest fatal to
the principle that interest may be awarded in international law.9
Thus, it may be argued that the disagreement of jurists on a fixed
period for the operation of prescription is no reason why this doctrine
should be treated lightly. However, international practice shows that
in the British Guiana Arbitration At was stated in the Treaty of 1897,
1 Johnson, D. H. N., ‘Acquisitive Prescription in International Law’, B.Y.I.L.,
27 (1950), p. 333.
2 Vcnezucla-British Guiana Boundary Arbitration, A.J.I.L., 11 (1917), pp. 700-1.
3 Chamizal Arbitration (1911) Mexico-United States, A.J.I.L5 (1911), pp.
782-833.
4 Island of Palmas Arbitration, A.J.I.L., 22 (1928), pp. 867-912.
6 Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (1933), P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 53.
'A.J.I.L., 1928, op. cit.,p. 910.
7 Ibid., pp. 867, 884. 8 Johnson, op. cit., p. 334.
0 Ibid., quoting Lautcrpacht, Private Law Sources and Analogies of International
Law (1927), p. 117, n. 4.