Page 287 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

BRITISH-SAUDI CONTROVERSY OVER BURAIMI 225

(c) The rights of Saudi Arabia
It is evident from what has been stated above that after the end of their
rule in Buraimi in 1869, the Saudis did not occupy that area or any
part of it, except comparatively recently in 1952. However, quite
apart from the fact that Buraimi remained beyond Saudi control
during this period, evidence of Saudi continued influence among the
tribes of the district docs not seem to be lacking.1
But it may be submitted that the fact that Saudi Arabia had sover­
eignty over the Oasis in the past (i.c., during the period 1800-69),
docs not necessarily mean that she has such sovereignty at present. In
view of legal principles, sovereignty in order to be established must be
‘peaceful’ and ‘continuous’. In other words, there is an essential re­
quirement of continued display of State functions in the territory
acquired. In the case of the Island of Palmas, this principle was put
as follows:
The admission of the existence of sovereignty (at two given periods) . . .
would not lead ... to the conclusion that, unless the contrary is proved,
there is a presumption for the existence of sovereignly in the meantime. . . .
No presumption of this kind is to be applied in international arbitra­
tion. . . r
Similarly, in his comments on the Clipperton Island case, 1932,3 Pro­
fessor Waldock clarifies this principle in the following:
It is therefore improbable that any formal state annexations that may be
proved in the nineteenth century could have greater legal effect than to
reinforce a more recent display of state activity in the present century by the
same state.4
On the other hand, it is recognised in this same case that
. . . state activity may be slight when the territory is uninhabited and when
there is no competing state activity.5
Consequently, in so far as the Saudi Government’s claim to the
Buraimi Oasis is concerned, the question arises whether that Govern­
ment, even in the absence of its actual physical possession of the Oasis
during the last eighty-three years (from 1869 to 1952), has, neverthe­
less, continued to display State activities in the area concerned? In
view of the independent character of the tribal regime in the Oasis,
and in view of the fact that the 1913 conquest of Hasa by the Saudis
did not affect this territory which remained beyond Saudi control,6
1 See above, pp. 217-18. 2 The Island of Palmas, op. cit., p. 904.
3 Arbitral Award on the Sovereignty over the Clipperton Island (Mexico v. France)
1932, A.J.l.L.y 26 (1932), p. 390.
4 Waldock, op. cit., p. 325.
6 Clipperton Island, op. cit., pp. 390-94. • See above, p. 217.