مجموعة ٣٠/٩٠ "المطالبة الفارسية بجزيرة البحرين" [و‎‎٤‎٩‎٣] (١٠٦٢/٩٩٨)

the^arlyhSorv ^rT ° CCa - sions in the Past appealed to
cne early History o± Bahrein in support of her claim tW
p 18 - lllstoricall y Persian territory. Since 1930, too, certain
Pei sian newspapers, presumably inspired have dpilf- of
consKlerable length with the history of Bahrein in the more
01 less iemote past, and have supported their statement
by quotations from, or references to, Arab or Persian
geographers or historians. Owing to the absence of records
and the shortness of time available, it has been impossible
researches iSo thTr n v tS m f d A eta ! 1 ’ or to conduct elaborate
researcnes into the writings of Arab geographers and others
from which further information might be secured But it is
arguable that the position of the islands prior to U83 s
at most only of very indirect importance in the presen?
connection. I he essential weakness in the Persian claim
is it is suggested, that there has been no effecBve exerc s^
in islands by Persia since her expulsion
m In So, and that the Sneikhs, who originally established
emselves by conquest, have now acquired a prescriptive
title based on an uninterrupted occupation of 150 vears
by the present ruling family. J
(2) The Absence of Persian Consent to the Detachment
of Bahrein from Persia.
lA Persian Government, in paragraph 2 of their Note
. ~ ri ' 11 A ' 1 - 1 st 19-8 (Appendix B), invited attention to
tne lollowing^ international juridical principle. ... 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.” They added (correctly) that Persia has never
renounced her sovereignty or ceded it to another State or
ever recognised any of the Sheikhs of Bahrein as independent
rulers.
I he argument put forward by the Persian Government
undei this head is examined in detail in paragraphs 6
and 7 of the Note despatched by the Foreign Office on
18th February 1929 in reply to the Persian Note of
2nd August 1928 (Appendix B). His Majesty’s Govern
ment ^ expressed their inability to agree that any such
principle^ if alleged to be of universal application, formed
part of international law. The deciding factor in the
question of international title in cases in which territory
has effectively established its independence of the former
sovereign is the effective establishment by that territory
of its independence, “and in the case of Bahrein His
Majesty’s Government regard as wholly untenable the pro
position that effective possession and administration by the
present ruling family for 145 years, during which 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.” In
paragraph 7 of the same Note His Majesty’s Government
cite historical precedents to show that the theory of the
necessity for the formal consent of the dispossessed State
is not one which has ever obtained international acceptance.
(3) The Unratified Treaty of 1822.
The circumstances in which the Treaty of 1822 was
concluded by Captain Bruce with the representative of the
Prince Governor of Shiraz are set out in paragraphs 20-21
above. As will be seen, Captain Bruce concluded it without