Page 291 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

BRITISH SAUDI CONTROVERSY OVER BURAIMI 229
Murall, such treaties (i.c., treaties concerning boundaries, etc.) remain
‘binding in respect of the territory over which the expanding State
extends"its powers’.1 With respect to Saudi Arabia, the question arises
whether, in the light of the above principles, she can be bound by the
conventions under discussion?
1 here is no doubt that the Conventions of 1913 and 1914 define, or
purport to define, former Turkish territories to which Saudi Arabia
has succeeded. On this basis, it can be argued that since these con­
ventions arc classified as dispositive treaties, or treaties creating ‘real
rights’, Saudi Arabia would, therefore, be bound by them. However,
the fact that the Saudi Arabian succession to the Turkish territories in
Arabia preceded the conclusion of these conventions seems to give
rise to the question whether Saudi Arabia has properly succeeded to
the conventions.2 If she has not, the treaties in question cannot be
binding upon her without her own consent and agreement. Therefore,
in order to bind Saudi Arabia by the Conventions of 1913 and 1914, it
must be shown that she has not only succeeded to a territory which
was formerly under the Turkish sovereignty, but also succeeded to
obligations under these conventions from the time the territory was
acquired by Saudi Arabia. In other words, it must be shown that when
Ibn SaTid conquered the province of Hasa from the Turks that terri­
tory was already ‘burdened’ by the Anglo-Turkish conventions.
It is believed that the Saudi conquest of Hasa from the Turks took
place on 5 May 1913.3 It is clear that on that date neither the Con­
vention of 1913 nor the Convention of 1914 had any legal existence.
Therefore, there were, in fact, no recognised boundaries of the terri­
tory before the conquest. A successor State can be bound by the
boundaries of the territory of its predecessor only if that territory
had recognised boundaries before the conquest or the act of transfer.
This principle seems to be reflected in Keith’s statement:
The boundaries of the territory acquired by the cession or conquest are
regulated by the treaty of cession or by the recognised boundaries before the
conquest*
Similarly, Alf Ross says:
. . . A succession of B to A’s legal status is recognised to a certain extent
1 De Mural t, R. W. G., The Problem of State Succession with Regard to Treaties
(1954), p. 20. On the practice of the World Court in relation to ‘subrogation’ or
stajc succession of treaties of ‘a strictly localised character’, sec Schwarzenberger,
2 Saudi Arabia succeeded to the Turkish territories nearly a year before the
conclusion of the 1914 Convention. This is explained in the next paragraph.
3 This is the date given by Philby, H. St J. B., in his book Arabian Jubilee (1952),
p. 30. The Saudi Memorial, II, Annex 6, p. 21, gives the date of Saudi’s conquest
of Hasa as 5 Jumada I 1331 (corresponding to 13 April 1913).
4 Keith, op. cit., p. 27 (emphasis supplied).