Page 319 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

IRAQI CLAIM TO KUWAIT 257
boundary has actually remained undcmarcatcd, the definition of the
boundary contained in the Exchange of Letters of 1932 cannot, in
the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, be deprived of
its binding force upon the two parties. Moreover, so far as Iraq is
concerned, the 1932 concord constitutes a valid estoppel to her claim
to Kuwait.1

Conclusion
The preceding examination of the Iraqi claim to Kuwait helps to
show the frivolousness of the claim. It is abundantly clear from this
examination that such a claim does not stand legal analysis, simply
because it is not a legal claim to territory in the real sense of the word.
Throughout the period during which this claim assumed its serious­
ness—a period extending between 19 June 1961 and 8 February 1963—
the Iraqi Government had failed to convince the nations of the world
that it had a legally valid claim to territory.2 In fact, the Iraqi claim
to Kuwait was ‘essentially’ based on ‘political arguments' which
should be differentiated from ‘legal arguments touching title’ to terri­
tory.3 This political claim, which like similar claims cannot withstand
legal reasoning, was motivated by the personal ambition of General
cAbd al-Karim Qasim, who was then head of the Iraqi Government.
The collapse of the Qasim regime and its replacement on 8 February

maintained, inter alia, that the date of Nuri al-Said's letter on 21 July 1932 preceded
the date of Iraq’s full independence which coincided with the date of her admission
to the League of Nations on 3 October. After 1958, the new Government of
*Abd al-Karim Qasim did not publicly state its attitude towards these Letters. It is
believed that the decision of the late Ruler of Kuwait not to Te-affirm formally his
adherence to the Agreement would not legally prejudice Kuwait’s claim that it
remains valid’. Recently, the Governments of Iraq and Kuwait have agreed to re­
open the question of the permanent demarcation of their frontier. It is understood
that the British Government has advised Kuwait to take the 1932 line as a basis
for any future negotiations with Iraq on this matter.
It seems doubtful that Iraq could be induced to abide by the 1932 Concord,
since it recognises Kuwait’s sovereignty over the Warbah and Bubiyan islands
over which Iraq has laid claims. As regards Kuwait, it would appear that her
reluctance to re-affirm publicly her position on the 1932 Concord indicates that
she equally does not wish to be bound by it.
1 See Oppcnheim, pp. 147-8: ‘The only legitimate occasions for implying recog­
nition arc (a) the conclusion of a bilateral treaty. . . .’
2 See Gott, Richard, op. cit., pp. 519 et seq. In fact, in his news conference on
28 June 1961, the Iraqi Permanent Representative at the U.N., Adnan Pachachi,
referred to Iraq’s ‘historic title’ to Kuwait, but he failed to substantiate the legal
grounds of the claim. See ibid., p. 530.
3 Sec Jennings, Professor R. Y., The Acquisition of Territory in International
Law (1963), p. 77.