"ملف II (F 94) 82/34 امتياز شركة أ.ب.و.ك" [و‎‎١‎٨‎٨] (٣٦٢/٣٣٢)

of the sea on the Iraqi side of this line, it is difficult to
see how we can possibly ignore it unless we take refuse in the
fiction (v/hich would clearly "be exploded if the i sue were ever
put to legal test) that we have no knowledge of the exact terms
of the concession* While it is true that internationally
the bed of the sea may be appropriated by a State outside its
own territorial waters^ it seems equally clear that this
appropriation may not extend to land under territorial waters of
another State* To acqufesce, therefore, in a concession
covering land or waters outside the proposed boundary shown to
the Company would make it very difficulty if not impossible, to
uphold that line. If the encroachment of the area for which
the Company have asked beyond this line is very slight, and in
no way endangers Iraqi control of the Rookah Channel,
acquiescence in the grant of the concession accordingly might
not have any serious practical effect; though it would in any
event mean that the concession line would in future be the
furthest to v /hich we could hope to extend Iraqi territorial
waters and would probably represent a purely arbitrary division
unrelated to any conceivable principle for the settlement of
such matters#
None of these important issues can, however,
be settled without an exact knowledge of the course of the
limits of the proposed concession area in this neighbourhood.
We ?/ould, therefore, be glad if you could
obtain a full definition of the marine boundary of the proposed
concession area (a record of which is assumed to be available
at their London office) without delay so that these doubtful
points may be investigated.
There can be very little time remaining for
intervisntion in this matter, since, as we now gather from
the Company 1 s earlier letter of the 29th December, the
definition/