Page 398 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

334 mi I l*( i AI STATUS <)|- I HR ARABIAN CiUl.R STATES

different things. In other words, Iraq’s recognition of Kuwait in
1963 resolved the Iraqi claim to Kuwait but not the Iraq-Kuwait
differences over the definition of their boundaries.
Assuming that the Agreed Minutes signed on 4 October 1963. by
highly powered representatives of the Governments of Iraq and
Kuwait form a valid Agreement under international law, the Iraqi
view-point would appear to be less convincing especially when it is
quite clear that the Agreed Minutes in question contained not only
confirmation of Kuwait’s independence but also recognition of her
boundaries on the basis of the former Iraq-Kuwait Exchange of
Letters of 1932. Had not the Agreed Minutes tied down Iraqi
recognition of Kuwait to the latter’s existing boundaries at the time,
it would have, of course, been a different matter, since in this case
the Iraqi argument would appear to hold a greater force.
It would seem that under international law both the Exchange of
Letters of 1932 and the Agreed Minutes of 1963 concerning the
status of the Kuwait-Iraq boundaries cannot be deprived of their
legal force as internationally binding agreements. Furthermore,
exchanges of notes (or exchanges of letters) are usually accepted as
one of the written forms of treaties and international agreements.
This principle has been adopted in the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties of 1969, which defines the term “treaty’’ in Article
2 as follows:

“ ‘treaty* means an international agreement concluded between states in
written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a
single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its
particular designation’’.1

This definition clearly applies to international agreements
between States, taking the form of exchange of letters or the form of
agreed minutes. Such agreements have full legal force under the
above Convention. However, it may be argued whether the said
boundary agreements necessarily required ratification under the
constitutional systems of the states which signed them.
The Iraqi Government’s reluctance to demarcate its boundaries
with Kuwait on the basis of the above agreements is, of course,
clear from the history of negotiations on the said problem.
However, the suggestion that the Exchange of Letters of 1932.
signed by the Iraqi Prime Minister at the time and the then Ruler of
Kuwait, respectively, did not constitute a valid agreement under
international law because it was not formally ratified by the Iraqi
legislative authorities, can hardly be supported by international
practice. Exchanges of Letters (or exchanges of notes) are
I. See British Treaty Series (Miscellaneous) No. 31 (1969) Comnd. 4140.