Page 248 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

186 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
that ‘adverse holding or prescription during a period of fifty years
shall make a good title’.1 Jurists, such as Grotius, favoured more than
one hundred years, while others required more. Nevertheless, the
majority of writers seem to concur in the view that the time for the
operation of prescription varies with the facts of each case which has
to be decided upon its own merits.2
In applying the doctrine of acquisitive prescription, explained above,
to the case of Bahrain, it can be argued that ‘the peaceful and con­
tinuous display of State authority’3 by AI-Khalifah Shaikhs—the
successors of the former 'Utubi Arabs—in Bahrain during the past
years (from 1783 up to this date), has operated as a ground for the
loss of Persia’s title to the island. The refusal, on the part of Persia, to
recognise this fact can hardly affect the established rights of the present
Government of Bahrain.
Finally, it is desirable to consider two issues which may be regarded,
from the point of view of Persia, as a ground for interrupting the
operation of prescription against Persia’s right in Bahrain. These are:
(1) Alleged British recognition of Persian sovereignty over Bahrain.
(2) Submission of a former Shaikh of Bahrain to Persia. To these, a
third issue will be added, namely, continued protests by Persia against
the authority of the present Government in Bahrain.

Alleged British recognition of Persian sovereignty over Bahrain
As a ground for her sovereignty over Bahrain, Persia relies upon
alleged British recognition of this sovereignty. It is asserted that two
nineteenth-century documents establish British recognition. One of
these documents is the disavowed draft Agreement of 1822, between a
former British Resident in the Gulf, Captain Bruce, and the then
Persian Governor of Shiraz. The other is Lord Clarendon’s Note to
Persia, dated 29 April 1869. These two documents will be discussed as
follows:
(i) The Bruce ‘AgreementIt will be convenient first to examine
Captain Bruce’s Agreement which stated that Bahrain was ‘being
always subordinate to the province of Fars’.
It has been explained that Bruce’s ‘Agreement’ was negotiated
without any authorisation on the part of the Governments of the two
negotiators, that, on the strength of these facts, the Agreement was
disavowed by the British and the Persian Governments, and that the
British Government removed Captain Bruce from his post for acting
without authority.4
Yet, Persia still insists that this Agreement, ‘though disavowed,

1 Johnson, op. cit., p. 340. 2 Ibid., p. 347.
3 See Island of Palmas, op. cit., pp. 910, 867, 884; Legal Status of Eastern Green­
land, op. cit., pp. 45-6. 4 Sec above, pp. 168-9.