Page 299 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

BRITISH -SAUDI CONTROVERSY OVER BURAIMI 237
Arabia could not have become bound by a treaty (i.c., the 1914
Convention) of which she had never heard. It is an accepted principle
of international law that when an independent State accepts, through
a freely negotiated treaty, the protection or suzerainty of a superior
State, it does not, however, surrender its sovereignty as a State and as
an International Person. It follows, therefore, that such a vassal State
docs not, inter alia, lose its capacity to enter into treaties with foreign
powers. However, because the suzerain State conducts the foreign
relations of its vassal, it also conducts the latter's treaties. But this
docs not mean that such treaties can be concluded without the know­
ledge or the consent of the vassal State. According to Oppenheim,
Modern suzerainty involves only a few rights of the suzerain State over
the vassal State which can be called constitutional rights. The rights of the
suzerain State over the vassal are principally international rights. Suzerainty
is by no means sovereignty.1
CONCLUSION
The Buraimi controversy involves two essential issues: (a) the location
of the common frontiers between Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, and
(b) the determination of sovereignty over the Buraimi Oasis. These
were the two issues which the abortive Geneva Arbitration Tribunal
of 1955 was requested to decide, in accordance with Article II of the
Arbitration Agreement of 30 July 1954.
As to (a), the British Government has invited the Saudi Government
to agree to a mutual settlement based on the Blue and the Violet
Lines of the Anglo-Turkish Conventions of 1913-14, as modified by
the proposed Riyadh Line of 1935. Such a settlement has been rejected
by the Saudi Government on a number of legally justifiable grounds
which have been examined in some detail above. On this basis, it
seems difficult to bind Saudi Arabia by these Conventions without
first making a full examination as to their legal propriety by an im­
partial tribunal appointed by the parties concerned. It may be that a
reference of these Conventions by the parties for interpretation by the
International Court of Justice will be justified.
As to (6), the question which has to be determined, in the light of
the historical facts referred to above, is whether Saudi Arabia has,
through any lack of effective state activities in the Buraimi Zone, lost
her original title based on the conquest of Buraimi in 1800. If so, has
either Muscat or Abu Dhabi, or both, established in the Oasis a
belter title than that of Saudi Arabia during any time after 1869? If
it is shown in this dispute that Saudi Arabia lost her title to the Oasis
after 1869, because she was not able to establish full control over it,

was duly signed by the representatives, and not from the day of its ratification’.
Sec Oppcnhcm, pp. 903-4. 1 Oppenheim, pp. 188-9.