Page 373 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

SUBMARINE BOUNDARIES 309
territorial waters. Concerning Fasht Abu SaTah, he proposed the
division of the Fasht into two parts: a western part which should
belong to Saudi Arabia and an eastern part which should belong to
Bahrain. Following discussions in 1954, the Saudis agreed to the
principle of dividing Fasht Abu SaTah. However, in a meeting which
was held in Dammam (Saudi Arabia) there arose a difference of
opinion on the principle of drawing the dividing line of the Fasht.
Consequently, during the negotiations which followed the Dammam
conference the idea of the equal sharing of oil exploited from the area
of the Fasht, without attempting to make a geographical division,
seemed to have appealed to both countries.
The above description sums up the status of the offshore boundary
dispute between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia up to the end of 1957.
This brings us to the final stage of the negotiations which in turn pre­
pared the way for the conclusion of the boundary agreement of 1958.
This new phase of the negotiations took place in February 1958,
during an official visit by the Ruler of Bahrain to Saudi Arabia. During
this visit the King of Saudi Arabia and the Ruler of Bahrain had a
chance to hold talks on their boundary problems ‘in an amicable and
friendly spirit’.1 Consequently, the two Heads of Governments reached
an amicable settlement of their boundary dispute, in accordance with
the terms of the Boundary Agreement of 22 February 1958. As is
shown above, the Ruler of Bahrain has agreed by this agreement to
relinquish his claim to sovereignty over Fasht Abu SaTah in return
for the Saudi Government’s obligation to grant to Bahrain ‘one half
of the net oil revenue’ accruing to the Saudi Government from the
Abu SaTah area which now lies exclusively within the Saudi Govern­
ment's jurisdiction.
Concerning the two islands of Lubaynah al-Kabirah and Lubaynah
al-Saghirah, the boundary agreement assigns the former to Saudi
Arabia and the latter to Bahrain without, however, attributing a
belt of territorial sea to either of them. This arrangement is consistent
with the proposal which the late Ruler of Bahrain made to the Saudis
during the early part of the negotiations. However, the arrangement
to deprive the two islands from their natural territorial seas is not
expressly provided in the agreement. It is noteworthy, in this con­
nection, that according to generally accepted legal principles, an
island, ‘wherever it may be situated, and whatever (and however
minimal) its area, . . . must have its own territorial sea’.2

1 The preamble to the agreement.
2 Fitzmaurice, Sir Gerald, ‘Some Results of the Geneva Conference on the Law
of the Seas’, I.C.L.Q., 8 (1959), p. 85. A territorial belt is thus regarded as an essen­
tial and ‘inseparable appurtenance’ of the land territory. Sec Grisbadarna case:
Decision of the Tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as quoted in
Scott, The Hague Court Reports, p. 127. Naturally, the definition of an island must