Page 296 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

234 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES

The above conflicting statements of the British and the Saudi
Governments show that there is a difference of opinion as to the exact
legal status of I bn Sarud following his succession to the formerly held
Turkish territories in eastern Arabia, viz, whether he held the terri­
tories in question in his capacity as an independent ruler or as a mere
Turkish vassal? The British Government appears to regard the Agree­
ment of 15 May 1914, signed by I bn Sa'ud with the Turkish Govern­
ment as a confirmation of the former’s dependent status vis-a-vis the
Porte. On the other hand, the Saudi Government denies the validity
of the agreement against it. From the legal point of view, it seems
questionable that the legal status of I bn Sarud at the time could be
determined on the basis of this agreement alone which, in any case,
is not in itself an internationally binding instrument.1
The historical evidence shows that subsequent to his conquest of
Hasa from the Turks in 1913, lbn Sa'ud was able to establish his
authority, beyond any doubt, over territories which were formerly
under Turkish authority. According to Philby, ‘in 1913, lbn Sarud
thus became master of the last Turkish province in central and
eastern Arabia’.2 There is also no evidence that lbn Sa'ud had in
fact extended, during any period of the year 1914, Turkish suzerainty
over his country, or acted, in any manner, as though he was a Turkish
vassal or dependent. For example, he never used the title of Qaim
Maqam conferred upon him by the 1914 treaty, nor did he, for that
matter, refrain from corresponding with foreign Powers. Also a clear
evidence of lbn Sa'ud's independence from Turkey at the time can be
seen in his decision to enter into war, on the side of Britain, against
Turkey. According to Philby, lbn Sarud ‘was quite firm in his refusal
to co-operate with the Turks when they became involved in war’.3
Furthermore, contrary to its present contention that lbn Sarud was
in 1914 a Turkish dependent, the British Government had never, in
fact, refrained at the time from dealing with him directly, in his
capacity as an independent ruler. It is evident that subsequent to his
conquest of Hasa in May 1913, the British Political Agents for Bahrain
and Kuwait met him personally somewhere in Arabia and had
friendly talks with him. Also in the winter of 1914, Captain W. H. I.
Shakespeare, the then British Political Agent at Kuwait, paid him

made an extensive search but found nothing regarding this alleged treaty nor any
of these letters.’ See Saudi Memorial, II, Annex 19, p. 52.
1 If any such treaty of suzerainty had, in fact, existed between lbn Sa ud ana
Turkey, it should not be excepted from the category of treaties that have been
discussed elsewhere in this work. As is shown above, such ‘treaties’ do not actually
have the status of internationally binding treaties and foreign States ljay® often
tended to disregard the legal relationship arising from them. See pp. 74-5, mu n. z.
2 Philby's article, op. cit., p. 629.
3 Philby, H. St J. B., Arabian Jubilee (1952), p. 38.