Page 70 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

!
F’.'i
I 8
n THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF STATES

The East India Company
V
m A word must now be said about the East India Company which was
responsible for the formulation of British policy in the Arabian Gulf
and the conclusion of the original treaties of the nineteenth century
I with the Gulf Rulers. The British East India Company was empowered
under the Charter of Charles II of 1661—which confirmed the Charter
of 1660 granted by Queen Elizabeth—‘to make war or peace with any
Prince not Christian' and to conclude treaties in the name of the
Crown. When in 1858, the powers of the Company were brought to
an end by the Act of 1858, it was provided in this Act that ‘all treaties
made by the said Company shall be binding on Her Majesty's Govern­
ment’ in the United Kingdom. Consequently, the Government of the
: United Kingdom succeeded to all the treaties between the East India
I Company and the Eastern countries.1
The East India Company was responsible for the conclusion of the
various treaties, agreements and engagements with the Rulers and
Shaikhs of the Arabian Gulf coast prior to 1858, in its capacity as the
Agent in the area for the British Crown. But following the passing
of the 1858 Act, which in effect transferred the powers of the East
India Company to the British Government of India, British Govern­
ment’s relations with the Gulf Rulers came to be conducted through
the British Government of India. However, from 1 April 1947 the
British Foreign Office assumed full responsibility for the conduct of
their foreign relations.2 It is generally assumed that obligations arising
from all the treaties, agreements and engagements concluded with the
Rulers of the Arabian Gulf States during the nineteenth century de­
volved upon Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom
rather than the Government of India. Accordingly, Sir Rupert Hay,
a former British Political Resident in the Arabian Gulf, points out that

continue to be controlled by its respective Sovereign.
One important criticism against this Federation is the emphasis in the agreement
on the sovereignty and independence of each member country. Moreover, the im­
portant provision of Article 4 that ‘the decisions of the Supreme Council shall be
made unanimously’ could in cfTcct cripple the authority of this council, because it
gives the right to any of the Rulers to veto the decisions approved by all the other
eight Rulers. Finally, it is regretted that the Federation agreement purposely fails
to provide for the establishment of a democratic parliamentary system, or any kind
of representative institutions, within the Federation.Consequently, there appears to
be a danger of the Federation becoming a symbol of the absolute authority of
the various Rulers, governing through a Supreme Council composed of them­
selves. Sec Appendix XIII.
j Lindley, pp. 31, 94; Lee Warner, Sir W., The Native States of India (1910),
^g* Great Britain, Central Office of Information, The Arab States of the Persian
Gulf August (1956), p. 2; Hay, op. cit., pp. 11 18.