Page 266 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

204 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
and Dr Ernesto Dihgo (Cuba), began its proceedings in September
1955 at Geneva.1 These proceedings, which took place between
11-16 September were held at the request of the British Agent who
informed the President of the tribunal that he had some complaints
to submit against Saudi Arabia for what he alleged to be a violation
of the terms of the Arbitration Agreement. At the beginning of its
session on 11 September, the British Agent presented the following
charges against Saudi Arabia:
(a) That the Saudi police contingent in the area exceeded the maximum
number of 15, agreed upon by the Arbitration Agreement;
(b) That attempts were made to send arms to disputed areas;
(c) That passengers and supplies were flown to the area;
(d) That a Saudi bribery on a wide scale was offered to Buraimi Shaikhs
to win them over to the Saudi side.2
The Saudi Agent presented evidence to refute the above charges.
As a result, the tribunal devoted its sessions to considering evidence
in support or against these charges.3 The final verdict of the tribunal
was expected on 16 September. But instead of giving its verdict on the
British charges at this session, the tribunal suspended its proceedings
sine die. This followed the sudden resignation of the British nominee
of the tribunal, Sir Reader Bullard, who, despite the advice of the

1 The Times, 29 July, 12 September 1955.
2 Buraimi Arbitration Tribunal, Minutes of Sittings, 11-15 September 1955,
Complaints by the United Kingdom Against Saudi Arabia to the Tribunal. These
complaints were made to the Tribunal by the British Counsel on 11 September,
before the beginning of the actual arbitration proceedings on the substance of the
Buraimi dispute. In his submission, the British Leading Counsel, Sir (now Lord)
Hartley Shawcross, complained that the Saudi Government ‘has been engaged in
a deliberate, a systematic and persistent policy of large-scale bribery, and other
improper practices which arc calculated ... to destroy the status quo as it existed
at the time of the Arbitration Agreement. . . .’ He introduced witnesses, who
included Buraimi shaikhs, to testify before the tribunal in support of the British
complaints.
3 Ibid. And sec The Times, 13-16 September 1955. The Saudi Leading Counsel,
Dr Richard Young, introduced to the tribunal one leading witness, 'Abd Allah
al-Quraishi, who consistently denied the charges of ‘improper practices’ which
were brought against him by the British Counsel. In his submission. Dr Young
held that ‘the evidence before the tribunal docs not substantiate the charges’
brought by the United Kingdom against Saudi Arabia in respect of‘alleged violation
by (the latter) of the interim regime in the disputed areas’. The Counsel also cast
doubts on the evidence of the United Kingdom’s witnesses who, he said, included
‘two brothers of the Ruler of Abu Dhabi, two shaikhs of the Dhawaher tribe, and
a British officer’. On the bribery charge Dr Young stated that sums of money
received by shaikhs and notables were ‘notoriously exaggerated by rumour of
what perhaps sometimes be called common knowledge’. Such sums of money, he
said ‘cannot be construed as bribery’. Finally, he gave an assurance, on behalf of
Saudi Arabia, to withdraw from the Buraimi Zone the Saudi officials whose with­
drawal was demanded by the United Kingdom.