Page 285 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

BRITISH — SAUDI CONTROVERSY OVER BURAIMI 223
it must be established that the territory in question, which was
formerly under the sovereignty of another country, has effectively
passed into the sovereignty of the Shaikh of Abu Dhabi through the
process of prescription or adverse holding. The prescription, in order
to be of legal value, must be manifested in the peaceful and continuous
display of government’s functions over the territory acquired. The
manifestation of State functions over a territory, moreover, ‘entails’,
according to Professor Waldock,
a duty to protect within the territory the rights of other States both in regard
to their security and in regard to the treatment of their nationals in the
territory.1
In support of Abu Dhabi’s claim to sovereignty over Buraimi, the
British Government maintains that ‘the Ruler of Abu Dhabi and the
Sultan of Muscat and Oman possessed valid and subsisting titles to
the sovereignty of their respective parts of the Zone, by continuous
and peaceful display of authority ever since the final eviction of’ the
Saudis in 1869. ‘Throughout the period’, the British argument con­
tinues, ‘the Ruler of Abu Dhabi, by agreement with the Sultan of
Muscat and Oman, exercised a general supervision of the Sultan’s
interests in his parts of the Oasis, co-operating with the Tamimah of
Nu'aim and the Wali of Sohar in this regard. ’ 2
In addition, the British Government contends that the Ruler of
Abu Dhabi ‘exercised complete authority over the Dhawahir settle­
ments’, and he, through his representative in Buraimi, ‘regularly col­
lected zakat on dates in the Dhawahir settlements, controlled through
his officials the management of water-channels, and collected the
water taxes’.3
It seems questionable that the above British contentions provide
solid proof of continuous and peaceful display of state activities in
the Buraimi Zone by either the Sultan of Muscat or the Shaikh of
Abu Dhabi.4 It is noteworthy, however, that evidence of the exercise
of jurisdiction by the Ruler of Abu Dhabi over Buraimi and the dis­
puted areas, which are subject to Article 11(a) of the Arbitration
Agreement, is provided in Part VI of the British Memorial.5 This

1 Ibid. 2 British Memorial, I, pp. 121-2, 129.
3 Ibid., pp. 69-70.
4 In his comment on the Minquiers andEcrehos case, 1953, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice,
‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Points of Substan­
tive Law, Part II’, B.Y.I.L., 32 (1955-6), at p. 56 states: ‘The question of private
activities such as fishing, visits to the group, quarrying there, building houses, etc.,
was a good deal discussed in this case. But it was contended on the French side,
and tacitly admitted on the United Kingdom’s side, that such activities certainly
could not per se be a basis of title, in the sense of conferring it, and could only
within limits afford evidence of it.’ And see ibid., p. 45, note (6).
6 British Memorial, I, pp. 65-73.