Page 372 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

308 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES

absence of protest and tacit acquiescence by such other States’*.
As Iran was the only littoral Stale which protested to Saudi Arabia
against the conclusion of this offshore agreement, it may be presumed
that her protest was based on her claim to sovereignty over Bahrain
rather than on the non-utilisation of the line of equidistance in the
agreement.2

General observations: The above-mentioned Bahrain-Saudi Arabia
boundary agreement deserves the following observations.
It is clear from the general direction of the ‘middle line’ of the
agreement that after reaching Point 12 it deflects abruptly to Points
13 and 14 in a northeasterly direction in order to facilitate the shifting
of the whole of the ‘hexagonal zone' (the subject of Article 2) which
contains the Abu SaTah oil field to the Saudi Arabian side of the
line. An examination of the records3 of the negotiations between
Bahrain and Saudi Arabia over the delimitation of their offshore
boundaries reveals that ‘Fasht Abu SaTah’ (the Arabic name for the
hexagonal area which has been allocated to Saudi Arabia under this
agreement) was originally claimed to belong to Bahrain. In fact, the
former Ruler of Bahrain had for many years in the past laid a claim
to Fasht Abu SaTah and the two islands of Lubaynah al-Kabirah and
Lubaynah al-Saghirah. Accordingly, the Bahrain Petroleum Company
(Bapco) was granted in 1941 the right to carry out exploration and
drilling work on Fasht Abu SaTah. However, owing to the Saudi
Government's objection, the exploration work on the Fasht, which
was undertaken by Bapco following the end of the Second World
War, was suspended pending the settlement of the question of sover­
eignty over the Fasht. In the first major round of negotiations which
were held in London in 1951, the British delegation representing
Bahrain proposed that the Lubaynah islands should be recognised as
belonging to Bahrain and the Rennie shoal to Saudi Arabia. This
proposal was refused by the Saudi delegation who claimed that
Fasht Abu SaTah and Lubaynah al-Kabirah should belong to Saudi
Arabia. A few years later, the Ruler of Bahrain offered to cede
Lubaynah al-Kabirah to Saudi Arabia provided it carried with it no

1 Padwa, op. cit., p. 630. And see MeGibbon, I. C., ‘The Scope of Acquiescence
in International Law’, B.Y.I.L., 31 (1954), p. 143.
2 Press reports confirmed that Iran’s objection to the conclusion of the boundary
agreement was based on her claim to sovereignty over Bahrain which she regards
as an ‘integral part of Iran’. Iran was reported to have presented protest notes to
both Saudi Arabia and Britain in this regard. In addition, Dr A. Ardalan, the
then Foreign Minister of Iran, was reported to have said that Iran would consider
as ‘an encroachment on her right’ any move by any foreign country or oil company
to utilise the agreement. See New York Times, 11 March 1958; United Press Inter­
national (Radio News), 4 March 1958. .
3 Government of Bahrain, The Secretariat, Fite of Confidential Correspondence
regarding Bahrain-Saudi Arabia Boundaries, 1959.