Page 292 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

230 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
in the ease of treaty obligations with a special local connection with the
territory in question. That at any rate applies to treaties in which the
boundaries of the territory towards a third State are established.1

According to the principles of international law, Saudi Arabia was,
after 5 May 1913, the only recognised International Person responsible
for the territory in question. ‘With the extinction of an International
Person', says Oppenheim, ‘disappears its rights and duties as a
Person.'2 If the Ottoman Government subsequently concluded a treaty
with the United Kingdom purporting to demarcate a territory over
which it already lost all marks of sovereignty, its action can be re­
garded illegal ah initio. On this basis, it seems doubtful that the
conventions under discussion have devolved upon Saudi Arabia.3
However, it can be argued on behalf of the United Kingdom, that the
conventions arc only statements of facts accepted by the Ottoman
Government as to what part of Arabia it had exercised authority over
during its rule between 1871 and 1913, irrespective of the fact that the
said territory was in the material date (i.e., 1913) under the control
of Ibn Sa'ud. Thus, it may be contended that since Ibn Sa'ud had, in
fact, been unable to extend his authority beyond Hasa, he is, therefore,
not allowed to regard his succession from Ottoman Turkey extended
to lands which were beyond Turkish authority. But the Saudi Arabian
answer to this contention is that Ibn Sa'ud’s claim to the disputed
boundaries is not based upon succession to former Turkish territories,
but upon succession to territories of his forefathers, the Wahhabi
rulers. Accordingly, the Saudi argument goes on, since Ibn Sa'ud’s
forefathers had established their control over territories which ex­
tended beyond Hasa, he was, therefore, entitled to disavow a treaty

1 Ross, A., A Textbook on International Law (1947), p. 125 (emphasis supplied).
2 Oppenheim, p. 158.
3 In a Note dated 15 June 1934, Sir Andrew Ryan, the British Minister at Jiddah,
wrote to Fuad Bey Hamzah, Deputy Saudi Foreign Minister: . . So far as the
boundaries now in question are concerned, they do not consider that any develop­
ments in Arabia since 1914 have been such as to render inappropriate to present
circumstances the blue line laid down in the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1913
and duly confirmed by the Convention of 1914.’ Sec British Memorial, II, Annex D,
No. 6. The above Note was replied to by Fuad Bey Hamzah on 20 June 1934. The
Saudi Government’s reply was as follows:
‘His Majesty’s Government cannot admit . . . that the boundary known as the
Blue Line . . . was agreed upon by Governments actually having any real concern
(in the matter)... It is (also) perfectly obvious that not only did the authority of
the Ottoman Government over the region under discussion not extend beyond the
limits of the inhabited towns and villages, ... but in fact (even this authority)
ceased as soon as His Majesty the King recovered the lands of hts forefathers and
established his legal authority in them by taking Hasa on (13 April 1913). Any
agreement (made) by the Ottoman Government regarding these regions alwrthat
?s not valid, since it was issued by a Government that had no concern with the
matter.’ Sec Saudi Memorial, II, Annex 6, pp. 20-1.