Page 88 - The Persian Gulf Historical Summaries (1907-1953) Vol IV_Neat

82

whether in defending n civil suit in a British
Court, or in meeting an international claim, must
he the same, namely, the extent of the rights and
jurisdiction possessed by the Arab Chiefs. The
chart which we inclose shows that the pearl hanks
extend to considerable distances from the main­
land or from any island. Within the 3-milo
limit it scorns evident that no difficulty need he
encountered, and that the rights over the pearl
banks, and the jurisdiction required to assert
those rights, are indisputable. Beyond this zone,
however, the case is less clear. We understand
that it has become an uncontcstcd principle of
modern international law that the sea, as a
general rule, cannot bo subjected to appropria­
tion. At the same time, wo believe that it is
admitted that portions of the sea may be affected
by propriotary rights on the part of the States
whose territories it adjoins, and that such rights
have been more especially recognized in the case
of fisheries, to which the inhabitants of a neigh­
bouring State have established a claim through
immemorial exercise of the right of fishing.
There can be no doubt that the rights of which
they now claim the exclusive enjoyment hove
been exercised by the Arabs of these coasts from
time immemorial; and we consider, therefore,
that the fact of these fisheries being in part oub-
side the limits of territorial waters need not
necessarily constitute a conclusive bar to tho
claim. Iu the pearl fisheries of Cevlou we have
a precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction hovond
the 3-mile limit under the Colonial Act of 1811,
which authorizes the seizure and condemnation
of any boat found within the limits of, or hover­
ing near, the pearl banks extending from (5 to 21
miles from the coast; and it may be observed
that, in the recent Behring Sea Arbitration, the
United States of America cited the Ceylon pre­
cedent as justifying their exorcise of possession
in, and control over, seal fisheries beyond tho
zone of territorial waters as ordinarily recognized
by international law. It is also worth noting
that the above contention is supported by the
authority of the Swiss publicist, Vnttel, who in
his “ Droits des Gens ” remarked, in discussing
the question as far 'buck as the eighteenth
century, “ Qui doutora que les p^cheries de perles
do Bahrein ct dc Ceylan no puissent legitime-
mt nt tomber cn propriety ?” Wo believe, there­
fore, that our claim to exclude all foreign
pearling vessels from the limits of the fisheries-