Page 330 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

266 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE
ARABIAN GULF STATES
The question arises whether the words ‘in this territory the Govern­
ments of Najd and Kuwait will share equal rights’ could be construed
as meaning the establishment of co-sovereignty over the zone. The
words are so general that they could in fact be interpreted as meaning
that the two governments should ‘share equal rights’ not only in the
ownership of the natural resources of the zone, but also in its ad­
ministration. However, the convention itself docs not provide for the
establishment of a constitutional system or joint administration in
the zone. Nor does there exist today any system of joint administration
in the zone. This is, probably, because the zone has remained, at least
before the inception of oil operations, an isolated and an uninhabited
area.1 Now that a number of oil companies arc operating both on the
land and the offshore of the zone, it should assume a greater impor­
tance than it used to have prior to the discovery of oil. It is therefore
necessary to define more clearly the legal status of the zone.
The position of the Kuwait-Saudi Arabia Neutral Zone may be
likened to that of a condominium arrangement2 in which both Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia enjoy an equal right of undivided sovereignty over
the zone. Upon the manner in which this joint sovereignty is exercised,
the Agreement of 1922, as explained above, does not shed any light.
Moreover, until mid-1965, no attempt was made to establish a joint
authority responsible for the administration of the zone. However,
the great interest centred on the zone recently as a result of the growth
of oil operations in the area, has given rise to some legal problems.

1 Sec Longrigg.op. cit.,pp. 214-16. According to the writer, even ‘the definitions
(of the Convention) leave much room for dispute’. But see below, p. 271, where
for the first time in the history of the Zone a system of separate administration
has been established.
* Dr Jessup defines a ‘condominium’ as a ‘political device . . . used for sharing
among two or three states the governing powers over a particular area.’ Sec Jessup,
P. C., and Taubcnfcld, H. J.. Control for Outer Space and the Antarctic Analogy
(1959), p. 11.
It may be helpful to cite two examples of condominium arrangements, namely
(a) the former Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and (6) the New Hebrides. As to (a), the
Anglo-Egyptian condominium over the Sudan derived its status from an Agree­
ment dated 19 January 1899. This Agreement established joint Anglo-Egyptian
military and civil command in the Sudan. (For the legal status of the Anglo-
Egyptian Sudan before the declaration of the independence of the Sudan in
January, 1956, see British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 91 (1898-9), pp. 19-2-.
And see O'Rourke, V. A., The Juristic Status of Egypt and the Sudan (1935),
pp. 142-70. Sec also Jessup, op. cit., p. 20.)
As to (h), the condominium over the New Hebrides was established by an
Agreement, dated 6 August 1914, concluded between Britain and France. is
provided for joint sovereignty over the ‘Group of the New Hebrides an over
the native population. It also provided for a separate jurisdiction to be cxcrcisea
by each signatory Power over its own subjects. (For the legal status of tnc rje%
Hebrides, sec Treaty Series, No. 7 (1922), Cmd. 1681. And see Hackwort h, v0 • »
op. cit., pp. 56-8; Oppcnhcim, pp. 452-4.)

■