Page 284 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

222 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES

(b) The rights of the Shaikh of Abu Dhabi
A reference has been made above to Lorimer’s statement that after
the Wahhabis defeat from Buraimi in 1869, it lost its significance as a
Wahhabi outpost and became almost ‘an annex to the principality of
Abu Dhabi’. Although making such a vague statement, Lorimer
does not appear to say whether Buraimi was later administered by the
Shaikh of Abu Dhabi as part of his territories.1 On the other hand,
although Lorimer refers to Buraimi as ‘independent’, he, nevertheless!
confirms that the ‘influence of the Shaikh of Abu Dhabi in the dis­
trict is strong and increasing’. This influence of Abu Dhabi in Buraimi
is attributed by Lorimer to the fact that the Shaikh owned lands, date-
gardens and, perhaps, one or two small settlements in the Oasis. Other
British writers and travellers, who paid occasional visits to Buraimi
during the first half of this century, also took notice of the Shaikh’s
property rights in the district.2 These facts clearly confirm the great
influence enjoyed by the Shaikh of Abu Dhabi in the Oasis. But it may
be argued that this influence is not relevant. The essential issue is
whether the Shaikh has, beyond any doubt, established his sovereignty
over the Buraimi Oasis. The distinction between ownership and
sovereignty is drawn by Professor Waldock in these words:
The emphasis has shifted from the taking of physical possession of the land
and the exclusion of others to the manifestation and exercise of the functions
of government over the territory. This change is a natural consequence of
the recognition that in modern international law occupation is the acquisi­
tion of sovereignty rather than of property.3
In order to establish Abu Dhabi’s title to Buraimi it must therefore
be clearly shown that she was, and has been, continuously and un-
disputably exercising State functions in the territory. In other words,

British records admit that the Saudi officials were invited to assume control of
Hamasa village by loyal Shaikhs of that village. See British Memorial, I, p. 45.
However, it should be mentioned that, contrary to the above conclusions, the
British Government maintains that ‘since 1869, the Sultan has maintained his
sovc rcignty over the three settlements of the Na'im tribe appointing their para­
mount Shaikh as his representative. ... At the same time, he has had special
arrangements with the Ruler of Abu Dhabi, whereby . . . (the latter) undertook
to supervise the Sultan’s interests in the Oasis----’ See British Memorial, I, pp. 8.35.
In view of the opinions expressed by a number of writers and British officials, who
paid visits to Muscat and Oman, on the complete lack of the Sultan’s authority in
the interior of Oman for the last 100 years, it would seem difficult to accept the
above British argument without question.
1 Sec above, p. 213. Lorimer points out at pp. 770 72 that during 1875 1904,
fighting never ceased between the Shaikhs of Abu Dhabi and the tribes of Buraimi
This statement testifies to the fact that the Buraimi tribes were far from being
submissive to the influence of the Abu Dhabi Shaikhs.
* Sec above, pp. 215-16. 3 Waldock, op c.t., p. 317.