Page 357 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

SUBMARINE BOUNDARIES 293
As regards the Government of Saudi Arabia, it objected in a state­
ment issued on 15 June 1963, against ‘Area 2, District I’ of the Pre-
announcement which lies to the south of IPAC concession area. It
also objected to the concession area granted to IPAC on the ground
that it constituted ‘an infringement of the legitimate rights of Saudi
Arabia in respect of the natural resources in the ofTshore area opposite
Saudi Arabia’s territorial waters or the territorial waters of the Saudi
Arab-Kuwait Neutral Zone’.1

(c) Definition of the oxer lap ping areas
The overlapping concession areas that have given rise to the above-
mentioned claims and counter-claims may be described as follows:2
Iraq-1 ran: The Iraqi Government claims that the Iranian Pre-
announcement defining Area 1, District 1 constituted an infringement
of the Iraqi territorial sea at the head of the Gulf. As stated earlier, the
Iraqi Decree of 4 November 1958, created two maritime zones: the
contiguous zone and the continental shelf zone, situated beyond the
limits of the Iraqi territorial sea which was fixed at twelve nautical
miles.
Kuwait-1 ran: The Kuwaiti Government claims that IPAC concession
area, Area 1, amounted to an infringement of its offshore concession
area held by Kuwait-Shell. Iran, on the other hand, claims that
Kuwait-Shell concession area has very greatly interfered with both
SIR1P and IPAC concessions, granted in 1957 and 1958, respectively.3

Kuwait-Saudi Arab NeutralZone-Iran: The Saudi Government claims
that IPAC concession of 1958 has interfered with Japanese AOC
concession of 1957, in respect of its undivided half interest in the
Neutral Zone.
Saudi Arabia-Iran: The Saudi Government claims that both IPAC
concession of 1958 and Area 2, District I of the Iranian Pre-announce­
ment constituted an infringement of ARAMCO concession area of
1948.

1 MEES, No. 33, 21 June 1963.
’For a description of these disputes, sec MEES, No. 11, Suppl., 18 January,
No. 31,7 June, No. 32, Suppl., 14 June and No. 33, 21 June 1963.
3 It is to be noted that Kuwait-Shell Company, which holds Kuwait’s offshore
concession, had informed Kuwait of its decision to suspend its drilling operations
within the concession area pending the settlement of the Kuwaiti-Iranian dispute.
The Company informed Kuwait that ‘its best drilling prospect now lies in the south­
eastern part of the concession area which is nearer to IPAC Cyrus field, but that
drilling in this area will not be possible until some agreement on the delimitation
of ofTshore boundaries between Kuwait and Iran is reached’. See MEES, No. 51,
25 October 1963.