ملف ١٩٢٢/٥٢٢، جزء ٧ "البحرين: المطالبة الفارسية بالسيادة عليها؛ مفاوضات المعاهدة الفارسية ١٩٢٩-١٩٣٠" [ظ‎‎٥‎٣‎٦] (١١٢٦/١٠٧٧)

but it seems to be established that about the year 1718 a descent was made upon the
island by the Omani Arabs, who then occupied it for a short period. In the middle
of the 18th century control appears to have passed into the hands of the once
powerful Huwala Arabs, who even at the present day are strongly represented there,
though in 1753 Persia was again able to assert her ascendancy by conquest. In 1783,
however the troops of His Majesty the Shah were finally driven out by the Utui^
Arabs and the authority of Persia ceased, never to be re-established.
4 It will be evident from the brief historical summary contained in the
precedino' paragraph that such historical evidence as can be adduced in favour of
the Persian claim must rest mainly upon intermittent occupation between the years
1622 and 1783, a period which comprises at least two periods of Arab rule. On
the other hand,'a period of approximately equal length between 1783 and the present
day has elapsed during which no dominion has been exercised in the islands by
Persia, and Arab rule has been uninterrupted. In these circumstances His Majesty’s
Government cannot but regard the claim of Bahrein to independence from Persia as
abundantly established. ..
5 It is in the light of the historical events summarised above that the second
argument of the Persian Government must be examined, viz., that part of their note
now under reply in which they affirm as an alleged principle of international law the
statement that “ a territory belonging to a sovereign State cannot be lawfully
detached so long as the right of ownership has not been transferred by this State to
another State in virtue of an official act, in this case a treaty, or so long as
its annexation by another State or its independence have not been officially
recognised by the lawful owner of the territory.” Even if this statement could be
accepted as valid, it would still be necessary for Persia to prove that she is, or ever
has been, the lawful owner of Bahrein, and that such rights as she may have acquired
in former ages by conquest and the exercise of force outweigh those not only of the
Portuguese, but of the Arab inhabitants themselves.
6 . His Majesty’s Government, however, deny without hesitation that any such
principle, if alleged to be of universal application, forms part of international law.
The assertion that the consent of the dispossessed State is invariably required to
validate a change of sovereignty is contradicted both by international practice and
the facts of history. Moreover, it would, if it existed, seriously prejudice the
maintenance of peace and international order. It would be open to any State to
advance a claim to territory, of which it has not for centuries been in effective
possession, on the ground that its loss of possession in distant ages had not been
confirmed by a subsequent treaty. To assert such a legal principle would be to assert
that on a disputed question of territory the one factor that is decisive is the expressed
will of one of the disputants. On the contrary, in cases where a territory has
effectively established its independence of the former sovereign, a treaty by which
the disposed owner recognises its independence is in effect chiefly valuable as
conclusive evidence that, in the view of the former sovereign, such independence has
been effectively established. In such cases the effective establishment by the territory
of its independence is the deciding factor in the question of international title, and
in the case of Bahrein His Majesty’s Government regard as wholly untenable the
proposition that effective possession and administration by the present ruling family
for 145 years, during wffiich these rulers have been independent of Persia, and during
which no Persian authority has been exercised in their dominions, can be affected by
the mere consideration that the Persian Government have not set their signature to a
document formally recognising the fact of their independence.
7. It is, moreover, abundantly clear from historical precedents that the theory
of the necessity for the formal consent of the dispossessed State is not one which has
ever obtained international acceptance. The revolted Spanish colonies in South
America were diplomatically recognised as independent States by the United States
Government in 1822 and by the British Government in 1824, many years before their
independence was formally admitted by Spain. The independence of Texas in 1837
and that of Panama in 1903 were recognised by the United States, and subsequently
by Great Britain and other European Powers, long before Mexico and Colombia
had ceased to look upon those territories as revolted provinces. In these instances,
to which others could, if necessary, be added, the effective establishment of
independence wms clearly regarded by the Pow 7 ers as the ruling factor in the
situation, and the consent of the dispossessed State was not held to be a condition
sine qua non of a valid transfer or acquisition of territory. In the case of Bahrein,
whose sheikhs have now been in treaty relations with His Majesty’s Government
I {or more
Majesty’;*
|e accord
8. J
assertion,
the authe
Governs
may exist
or even e
theGover
claim. T
surroundi
professed
19tli cent'
of the ma
to offer t
so; and t.
or the W;
would, tl
any of tli
that this
he held t(
to resist
Governm
their clai
in the pa
hy which
British r
1928, exp
Governm
Governm
temporal
when Hi
Sheikh o
acteUon
Captain
Kent wit
recorded
that “it
the least
held by]
never sir
10 -
Governn
never ini
■iient. ,
the Perj
sideratk
valid. ;
the shei
hdepem
impl
the refe
the mai
°r other
Pterins
moved 1