Page 298 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

236 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
It seems clear from the italicised words of the above quotations that
the British Government was not prepared to debar itself from estab­
lishing relations with I bn Sa'ud even if he had apparently ‘accepted
the Ottoman offer’ as Turkish Wali. The British Government did not,
thus, seem to view with great concern the apparent pledge of Turkish
loyalty by I bn Sarud, as long as Ottoman Turkey had not the military
ability to dislodge I bn Sarud from his de facto independent position
in Arabia.1
On the other hand, it may be argued that even if the British Govern­
ment had, in practice, regarded Ibn Sa'ud as a Turkish vassal, as a
result of his conclusion of the treaty of 15 May 1914, this, however,
does not make the 1914 Convention binding upon Saudi Arabia’just
because it happened to be ratified a few weeks after the date of the
signature of the treaty of suzerainty.2 This may be explained as
follows: Firstly, the 1914 Convention, the ratification of which fol­
lowed the date of the signature of the treaty of suzerainty, was in fact
formally concluded on 9 March 1914, nearly two months before the
signature of the treaty. During that period Ibn Sa'ud, who had already,
since 5 May 1913, established himself ‘in the position of beatus
possidentis in El-Hasa’, was still, in the eyes of the law, the only de
facto sovereign of the Turkish named ‘sanjaq of Najd’.3 Yet he was
never consulted or informed about the conclusion of a convention
which purported to define the boundaries of Arabian territories over
which Ottoman Turkey had not even a shadow of control at the time.
Consequently, the 1914 Convention was, basically, not binding upon
Saudi Arabia since it was negotiated and finally concluded with a
government which held no legal authority over the territories in
question.4 Secondly, even in her capacity as a vassal State, Saudi
1 It seems clear from British state practice that the British Government had often
in the past objected to Turkish pretensions of suzerainty over the petty Arab
Shaikhs and Rulers of the Arabian peninsula. Consequently, it proceeded to
establish direct relations with those Arab Rulers regardless of the Turkish claims
of authority over them. For example, the British Government was not deterred in
the past from concluding with the then Ruler of Kuwait, Shaikh Mubarak Al-
Sabah, the Agreement of 1899, which placed Kuwait under British protection,
although it ostensibly acknowledged Turkish suzerainty over Kuwait. For details,
see Chapter 5.
2 See British Memorial, I, pp. 9, 80.
3 The Times, 20 July 1914. And see above, p. 235.
4 The British contention, as explained above, appears to attach great importance
to the date of the ratification of the 1914 Convention since it took place after the
date of the treaty of suzerainty. But this contention loses sight of the fact that at
the time of the conclusion of the Convention Turkey had no legal standing what­
soever since Ibn Sa’ud had not yet transferred to her authority over the subject-
matter of the Convention. The significance of the date of the conclusion of a treaty
which provides for ratification should not be ignored, since ‘according to the most
accepted opinion’, such a treaty is not ‘devoid altogether of certain (legal) effects
Moreover it is agreed that such a treaty ‘is always dated from the day when it