"الملف 35/85 III A 10 مسألة الأعلام الفرنسية" [و‎‎٣‎٦] (٦١٠/٨٢)

I #
00036
I
ignifjr
34 of ^
f 4
—f
;
Y
It is to be observed at the outset that Prance, by adopting the role of
defendant in a case in which she is claiming immunity and exceptional treat
ment for Arabs in the dominions of their natural Sovereign, has reserved for
the ,c Contre- Memoire " a great part of her own affirmative case, and that the
" Contre-Memoire,' 1 like the " Memoire," is very largely taken up by state
ments with reference to Great Britain which have nothing to do with the points
in dispute, and serve only to distract the attention of the Arbitrators from the
points really at issue.
It appears to His Majesty's Government that the relevant matters of fact
involved in the Case fall within a very small compass, and that for the solution
of question mainly, if not solely, of a juridical character, it is unnecessary and
improper to enter into speculations or to make allegations as to the diplomatic
action or political situation of either of the two Governments concerned. His
Majesty's Government submit that Prance does not assist her case by the
manner in which motives are imputed to Great Britain or to the British
authorities in India (" Contre-Memoirep. 51). His Majesty's Government
do not propose to recriminate by any inquiry into the policy of Prance with
respect to the coast of Arabia, and are content to examine the acts and claims
of Prance with respect to the Treaty of 1844, the Declaration of 1862, and the
Brussels Act of 1890, by reference to the conventional rights and duties rising
from these documents and to the rules of international law. They will confine
themselves to the task of laying before the Tribunal what would appear, according
to international law and the terms of those documents, to be the due apprecia
tion of the correctness and effect of these claims.
It is slated in the Preface to the Prench " Contre-Memoire " (p. 1) that
the Prench " Memoire"—
" a demontre enfin que la Prance n'a jamais cesse dans ses rapports avec
I'lmanat d'observer 1'esprit, comme la lattre, de la Declaration du 10 Mars,
1862. Cette derni^re question est en realite la seule qui devait etre soumise au
present arbitrage."
It has already been pointed out in the British Counter-Case (p. 2) that
the " Compromis " submits to, the Tribunal no such general question as
above stated. On perusal of the terms of
British Case, p. 2. the Compromis " and of M. Cambon's
letter printed at p. 80 of the Prench " Contre-Memoire," it will be clearly
seen that no general inquiry is intended as to whether Great Britain or Prance
have respected the mutual Declaration of 1862, but a particular inquiry as to
whether the grant by Prance of her Aug to subjects of the Sultan is consistent with
the Declaration, and a necessary incident of such inquiry, to ascertain what
immunities Prance claims to attich, within the Sultanate of Muscat, to the
possession of the Prench flag by the Sultan's subjects.
In view of the too frequent digressions from the true issue in the Prench
" Memoire " and " Contre-Memoire," His Majesty's Government cannot refrain
from pressing urgently on the Tribunal the true nature of the issues submitted
and the desirability of confining the arguments and conclusions to these issues.
PBELIMINAUY OBSERVATIONS.
Before passing to the facts and arguments, it is unfortunately again neces
sary to dispose of certain preliminary allegations which appear to impugn the
good faith of Great Britain.
The i" Contre-Memoire " (pp. 3 to 7) deals with the question of the
appearance of the name of His Highness the Sultan as a party to the British
Case. In the Briti sh Counter-Case (p. 1) Great Britain has in deference to
Prench wishes, deleted the Sultan's name as a party. But it has been pointed out
in the Counter-Case (p. 1) and in the correspondence (printed at pp. 39, 40
and 41 of the Counter-Case) that the Prench objection is purely technical, and
9