Page 253 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

Iran's claim to Bahrain 191
independence, professed on various occasions, during the first sixty or
seventy years of the nineteenth century, an unwilling allegiance to Muscat,
to Persia, to Turkey, to the rulers of the mainland of Arabia, even to Egypt
—to any Power, in short, who would agree to offer them protection and
seemed at the time in a strong enough position to do so; and that at different
times for short periods they paid tribute to Muscat, Egypt, or the Wahhabi
Arabs of the mainland.
Any argument based on payment of tribute would therefore be available
in support of a claim to sovereignty over Bahrain by any of the States to
which tribute was in fact paid.
Chamberlain then referred to an important point when he stated that
. . . in any case it is evident that this timid and vacillating policy pursued
on occasion by his predecessors cannot be held to affect the position of
the present Shaikh, who is firm in his determination to resist the Persian
Government’s claims . . .l

Persian diplomatic protests
It has been argued, on behalf of Persia, that the Persian sovereignty
over Bahrain ‘cannot be challenged’ on the ground of ‘a change of
international title to the Island’ by prescription, because Persia, by
her renewed protests to Britain, has interrupted the operation of
prescription, and thus kept ‘alive’ her rights on Bahrain.2
On the face of it, this argument is not devoid of some truth, especi­
ally when one has to consider that for the operation of prescription, or
adverse holding, the exercise of State authority must be peaceful and
continuous.3 In the view of many writers, protest estops the operation
and continuity of the adverse holding.4 It was held in the Chamizal
Arbitration that ‘possession maintained in teeth of constant opposition
did not amount to prescription’.5 But the question at issue is whether a
mere diplomatic protest can, by itself, be regarded as an adequate
action for the purpose of interrupting prescription?
According to Verykios, as quoted by Johnson, ‘a protest not fol­
lowed by other action becomes in time “academic” and “useless” \6
‘The other action that was formerly required’, says Johnson, ‘was
forceful opposition of some sort. Since 1919 it was reference of the
matter to the League of Nations or the Permanent Court of Interna­
tional Justice. Since 1945 it has been, where possible, reference of the
matter to the United Nations or the International Court of Justice.’7
In his view, ‘The advent of this new machinery for settling interna­
tional disputes has altered the role of protest in the matter of acquisi­
tive prescription.’ Therefore, diplomatic protest, he continues, ‘is of
1 L.N.O.7., May 1929, p. 792. 2 Adamiyat, op. cit., p. 249.
3 Johnson, op. cit., pp. 347-8; MacGibbon, I. C., ‘Some Observations on the
Part of Protest in International Law’, B.Y.I.L., 30 (1953), p. 306.
4 Hyde, I, p. 387; Oppenhcim, pp. 577-8.
6 See Johnson, op. cit., p. 345. f " 6 Ibid., p. 346. 7 Ibid.