Page 308 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

246 THE LEGAL STATUS OF TIIE ARABIAN GULF STATES
is contrary to international law, and that it was on these grounds that the
Foreign Secretary condemned Russian intervention in Hungary.1
The above uncertainties about the legality of British intervention
in Oman give rise to a controversial issue, namely, whether ‘inter­
vention by invitation’ (to use the words of E. Lauterpacht) is lawful?2
P. Benenson, and indeed a few other people, took the view that
British intervention in Oman was contrary to the principles of inter­
national law.3 He quotes an article in The Times by Lord Shawcross,
in which the latter condemns the Russian intervention in Hungary
as illegal.1 In his article, Lord Shawcross was quoting from Hyde
where he says:
Foreign interference, howsoever invoked, is necessarily directed against
a portion of the population of a State and is thus a denial of its right to
engage in or suppress a revolution or of employing its own resources to
retain or acquire control over the government of its own territory.5
Benenson then deduces from the above principles that the Omani
revolt against the Sultan was an exercise of the ‘Droit dc Revoltc’,
and he, therefore, concludes by saying:
Where no constitutional machinery for legal change exists, the people
of a country may have no option but to revolt against tyranny.®
Similarly, Quincy Wright is of the opinion that intervention by
invitation is inadmissible. He formulates the principle of law in the
following:
: International law does not permit the use of force in the territory of
another state on invitation either of the recognised or insurgent government
in times of rebellion, insurrection or civil war. Since international law
recognises the right of revolution, it cannot permit other states to intervene
: to prevent it.7
Although E. Lauterpacht is of the opinion that
the government of a state may give what amounts to a licence to another
1 House of Commons Debates, op. cit., col. 36, 22 July 1957. And sec House of
Lords Debates, voh 205, col. 16, 22 July 1957.
2 Lauterpacht, E., ‘Intervention by Invitation’, The Times, 24 August 1960. For
an analytical discussion of the legality of British intervention in Oman, 1957, sec
Lauterpacht, E., ‘The Contemporary Practice of the United Kingdom in the Field
of International Law’, I.C.L.Q., 7 (1958), pp. 102-8.
3 The Times, 13 August 1957. And see Philby’s Letter in The Manchester Guar­
dian, op. cit. See also Editorial Note, ‘British Intervention in Oman', Revue
egyptienne de droit international, 13 (1957), pp. 114-21.
* The Times, ‘Intervention in Hungary’, 13 March 1957.
1 Hyde, I, pp. 253-4. 6 The Times, 13 August 1957.
7 Wright Q., ‘Subversive Intervention’, A.J.J.L., 54 (1960), p. 529. See also by
the same writer, in the same Journal, ‘The Prevention of Aggression’, 50 (1956),
pp. 514 et seq.; and ‘U.S. Intervention in the Lebanon’, 53 (1959), pp. 112 ct seq.