Page 300 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat
P. 300
238 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
or because her state activities in it after this period were very slight,
it does not follow that Muscat and Abu Dhabi have acquired such a
title if they cannot show sufficient proof of their ‘effective possession’
over the Oasis throughout this period. In other words, the sovereignty
of Muscat and Abu Dhabi over Buraimi can be proved by showing
that these countries have established a ‘superior’ title to that of the
Saudis.
The British Government has claimed sovereignty over the Buraimi
Oasis, on behalf of both Muscat and Abu Dhabi, on the ground that
after 1869 it came under the joint jurisdiction of the rulers of the two
countries who have continuously displayed and exercised unchallenged
state activities in the Oasis. The Saudi Government has, of course,
made a similar claim of jurisdiction over Buraimi. However, except
for their temporary occupation of the village of Hamasa in 1952, the
Saudis do not appear to have been able to establish their ‘effective
possession’ over the Oasis since their eviction from it in 1869. Conse
quently, if it is proved that during this period both Abu Dhabi and
Muscat have, in fact, established ‘a prescriptive title’ to the territory,
this title, as manifested by a continuous and peaceful display of
authority, would, undoubtedly, prevail upon the original Saudi title
to that territory. However, it seems questionable that the fait accompli
settlement which prevailed in Buraimi after 1955, as a result of what a
distinguished British writer calls ‘a continuous build-up’ of the British-
officered Levies of Trucial Oman,1 could, legally and judicially, be
relied upon as proof of the ‘effective control’ established by both the
Sultan of Muscat and the Ruler of Abu Dhabi in the Oasis.
1 Mann, C., Abu Dhabi (1964), p. 98.