Page 289 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

BRITISH- SAUDI CONTROVERSY OVER BURAIMI 227
of three months. Although the period for ratification of this conven­
tion was extended from time to time, it never, in fact, took place.1
On this basis, this convention can have no legal validity whatsoever.
According to Oppcnheim,
The function of ratification is ... to make the treaty binding; if it is
refused, the treaty falls to the ground in consequence.2
On the other hand, the Convention of 9 March 1914 was ratified on
3 June 1914,3 and is, therefore, a perfectly valid treaty. Although this
convention is basically connected with the boundaries between Aden
and Yemen, which was at the time under the Turkish suzerainty, its
significance in the present dispute over the eastern boundaries of
Saudi Arabia lies in the fact that it provided in Article 3 for the adop­
tion of Article 11 of the unratified Convention of 1913. It appears
from this arrangement that Article 11 of the unratified Convention of
1913, which specifically refers to the ‘Blue Line’, has been given legal
validity by its adoption in a completely different treaty which has, by
its subsequent ratification, assumed international validity. This seems
to be a peculiar way of giving validity to a single article of a draft
convention which never acquired legal force owing to its non-ratifica­
tion. It is clear from this procedure that the parties to the 1914
Convention took the definition of the ‘Blue Line’ provided by Article
11 of the 1913 Agreement as final in Article 3 of this convention, and
thus brought it into force.4 But the question arises whether the ‘Blue
Line7 can be made valid in this manner when the instrument from
which it basically derived its validity was not ratified at all?
It is obvious that had the 1913 Agreement been ratified at any time
after the ratification of the 1914 Convention, Article 11 defining the
‘Blue Line’ would then have been given full legal force by virtue of
the 1913 Agreement rather than by the 1914 Convention. Therefore,
had the parties been able to ratify the 1913 Agreement, this would
have changed the whole basis of the 1914 Convention. Moreover, it
may be argued that on 3 June 1914, the date of the ratification of the
1914 Convention, Article 11 itself was not actually devoid of any
legal validity5 because on that date the 1913 Agreement was still open
1 See above, p. 219. 2 Oppenheim, pp. 903-4.
3 Aitchison, p. 43, and see above, p. 219.
4The British Government’s argument on this point runs as follow: *. . . While
the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1913 was not ratified, the boundary laid down in
Article ll'of that Convention is mentioned, adequately defined and definitely
adopted in Article 3 of the ratified Convention of 1914, which in view of His
Majesty’s Government remains operative .. .’ See British Memorial, II, Annex D,
No. 4, Sir A. Ryan, British Mini* ter at Jiddah to Fuad Bey Hamza, Deputy Saudi
Arabian Minister for Foreign Affairs, 28 April 1934.
6 A treaty which provides for ratification is ‘not devoid’ of legal effects. Sje
Oppenheim, p. 904.