Page 344 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

280 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES
term ‘Falat Gharrch’ as conveying the same meaning as the English
term ‘continental shelf’. Although this reference to the continental
shelf in the Arabian Gulf has been criticised as ‘meaningless’, the
Iranian legislation is also applicable to the Gulf of Oman which does
contain a continental shelf in the legal sense.1 (b) They recognise the
rights of the coastal States to control and to ‘subject to their juris­
diction’ certain undefined portions of the high sea outside their
territorial seas, provided that these offshore areas claimed shall be
delimited on ‘equitable and just principles’ by agreement with neigh­
bouring States. According to Richard Young, this pattern adopted
by the Arab States of the Gulf ‘exemplifies one approach to the diffi­
cult problem of how to divide amicably submarine areas of narrow
seas where the continental shelf doctrine is not applicable’.2 However,
the proclamations do not expressly utilise the median line as a basis
for defining the common submarine boundaries of the States con­
cerned. (c) They do not affect the international character of the super­
jacent waters of the high sea, the status of the air space above such
waters or the traditional rights of fishing and pearling in them.3
(b) Definition of the territorial sea
The above-mentioned claims to the natural resources of the sea-bed
and sub-soil of the high sea areas contiguous to the territorial seas
of the Arabian Gulf Stales give rise to the question as to the limits of
the territorial seas of these States. With respect to the Gulf Shaikh-
doms, they have not issued proclamations on the definition of their
territorial seas. However, it is assumed that the British sponsored
customary rule of the three-mile limit from the low-water mark on

1 See Young, R., ‘The Legal Status . . op. cit., p. 236.
2 Young, R., ‘Saudi Arabian Offshore Legislation', A.J.I.L., 43 (1949), p. 532.
Similarly, see Padwa, D. J., ‘Submarine Boundaries’, I.C.L.Q., 9 (1960), 630, where
he states that these proclamations ‘generate a fairly uniform affirmation of the
comparatively modest proposition that submarine boundaries should be deter­
mined on an equitable basis, preferably by mutual agreement’. The principle of
‘equity’ is also accepted by Article 3 of the Iranian Law of 19 June 1955 as a
basis for determining the offshore boundaries of Iran. See U.N.L.S. (1957) p. 25.
3 See, e.g., the Proclamation of Bahrain, the relevant provisions of which are
cited above. Similar provisions are contained in the proclamations of the other
Shaikhdoms. As regards the Proclamation of Abu Dhabi, the assurance regarding
the unchanged status of the air space above the high sea areas claimed was, prob­
ably, ‘inadvertently’ omitted. See Young, R., ‘Further Claims to Areas Beneath
the High Seas’, A.J.I.L., 43 (1949), pp. 790-2. Concerning rights of fishing and
pearling in the Gulf, there exists no national legislation regulating them. The
fisheries’, says Auguste, ‘which long antedate the growth of national states in the
Gulf area, are governed by customs and usages of immemorial standing. Basic
among these is the concept that pearl banks are open equally to all the peoples of
the Gulf on the common understanding that methods and standards will be
observed.’ See Auguste, B.B.L., The Continental Shelf: The Practice and Policy of
the Latin American States . . ., etc. (1960), pp. 68-9, note 148.