Page 268 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

206 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
this Saudi request for the resumption of arbitration and declared its
intention to maintain the position which arose from the occupation
of Buraimi by the Trucial Oman Levies (now Scouts).1

Latest developments of the dispute
In August 1960 it was announced that the British and the Saudi
Governments had agreed on the appointment of a neutral observer by
the Secretary-General of the United Nations with the object of sending
‘a fact-finding mission’ to Buraimi.2 The Secretary-General at the
time chose Mr Herbert dc Ribbing, Swedish Ambassador to Spain, to
head this mission. The purpose of the mission was to ascertain the
number of ‘Buraimi inhabitants, shaikhs and notables who fled to
Saudi Arabia' after the occupation of Buraimi in 1955 by the British-
led Trucial Oman Levies. Saudi Arabia has maintained that the return
of these Buraimi inhabitants to the Oasis is a necessary condition
before any progress could be made on the settlement of the dispute
by negotiations.3 In September 1960, Mr de Ribbing visited Buraimi,
and in October of that year he submitted to the Secretary-General
his report in which he recommended that a number of genuine
Buraimi inhabitants (who are now living in Saudi Arabia) should be
allowed to return to their settlements in the Oasis.4 Following the
in particular, that the British member on the tribunal had seen fit to resign from
the tribunal on the same day it was reconvened for the purpose of delivering its
findings on the British charges against the Saudis.
Sec The Times, 25 November 1955; ibid., 28 April 1958. And for a critical review
of the Buraimi arbitration, sec Mann, C., Abu Dhabi (1964), p. 97, where the
writer makes this comment on Sir Reader’s resignation: ‘As a member of the
tribunal. Sir Reader (Bullard) was fully aware of the outcome of the deliberations
regarding the British allegations; therefore, it is doubtful that he would have
resigned if the decision were going to substantiate British claims and allegations.*
1 Legally speaking, the British Government could be held at fault for not giving
effect to Article 1(c) of the Arbitration Agreement of 1954, which provides for the
method of replacing a member of the tribunal in the case of his resignation or
death.
For a legal analysis of the Buraimi proceedings at Geneva in 1955, see Goy,
Raymond, ‘L’Affaire de l’Oasis de Buraimi’, Annuaire frangais de droit international
(1957), pp. 188-205. The writer seems to question the legality of the action of the
British member of the tribunal, Sir Reader Bullard, in withdrawing, without
notice, in the following remarks: ‘A vrai dire, le droit de demissionner ne pou-
vait ctrc en soi contcste a l’agcnt britannique: il se trouvait prevu par le com-
promis (art. 1 34. lib c.) Mais son usage dans les circonstanccs dc I’affairc est
critique, parcc qu’il serait intervenu pour certains motifs partiaux et a seule fin
dc bloquer l’arbitrage.’ See ibid., p. 201. . . ....
2 The Times, 11 August 1960. For earlier reports about Buraimi, see ibid.,
1 December 1959. 3 The Times, 14 November 1960.
4 The Times 11 August, 20 September and 14 November 1960. It seems that the
recommendations of Mr dc Ribbing on the status of the Buraimi refugees living
in Saudi Arabia were quite unacceptable to the British Government. See The Times,
19 October 1960.