Page 282 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

220 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
with Article 11 of the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of the 29th July, 1913,
relative to the Persian Gulf and the surrounding territories. The first*of the
two lines is shown in violet and the second in blue on the special map
annexed hereto ... 1

THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The question of continuous occupation of Duraimi by either party
This discussion will be devoted to an examination of the parties’
historical title to the Buraimi Oasis. Therefore, the question to be
considered here is whether either party to this dispute has established
an effective authority over the territory. It will be convenient to deal
with the extent of rights acquired by the parties in the territory in
dispute by adhering to the preceding division of the history of control
over it as follows:
(i) 1S00-69
In the light of the historical facts set out above, it appears that for the
most part of this period the Buraimi Oasis had, undisputably, remained
under Saudi sovereignty. The argument in favour of Saudi Arabia’s
title to the area during this period runs as follows: The Saudi original
title was based on conquest. This was perfected by establishing a
prescriptive right in the area for a period of nearly seventy years.1
As regards the kind of activity that is required from a State to display
in a territory, as a prerequisite for proving its sovereignty over that
territory, the World Court, in its decision in the Minquiers andEcrehos
case, 1953, felt content with what it called ‘the acts which relate to the
exercise of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation’.2
The Saudi administration of Buraimi was tribal in nature, but there
was also an appointed Saudi Official in that place who was responsible
to the Saudi Amir who had his seat of government at Najd. On the
other hand, it is undisputable that during this period neither the Sultan
of Muscat nor the Shaikh of Abu Dhabi had any connection with
Buraimi. It is clear that while the Wahhabis during the most part of
this period were in full control over the Oasis, all the tribal Shaikhs of
the Omani coast, including those of Muscat and Abu Dhabi, were
tributary to them.3
In view of those facts, and according to the doctrine of the ‘inter­
temporal law’, as interpreted by Max Huber,4 it can be submitted
1 Sec Arbitral Award Concerning the Island of Palmas (1928), A.J.I.L.y 22 (1928),
pp. 873, 876, 907-8.
2 J.C.J. Reports, 1953, p. 65. 3 See above, pp. 208-12. ,
4 Waldock, C. H. M., ‘Disputed Sovereignty in the Falkland Dependencies,
B y IL 25 (1948), p. 320. According to the writer, the doctrine of ‘inter-temporal
law’ as interpreted by Max Huber in the Palmas case, means that a ‘juridical

law in force at a