مجموعة ٢٨/ ٩٦ "بلاد فارس. الشؤون القضائية. القوانين الفارسية بخصوص التهريب. وضع الأجانب." [و‎‎٣‎٦] (١٢٢/٧١)

r
semi-official letter of the 1st October, 1936, to Ur.
Bafgallay, (Ho. 231/6/36), that the expiry of the Tariff
Autonomy Treaty has tended to deprive the "Safeguards ’ 1 of
any validity which they may previously have had in
international law. In this connexion it will be remembered
that the view expressed in paragraph 4 of Sir John Simon’s
despatch No. 451 of the 6 th November, 1933, to Mr. Mallet,
was that there is no juridical connexion between the Treaty
and the "Safeguards"note in the sense that the duration of
the one is governed by the other. This view has been
repeated more recently in Mr. Baggallay’s semi-official
letter to Mr. Butler of the 28th May, 1936, to which
Mr. Butler refers. I am still advised that this view is
correct and that the continuance in force of the treaty is
consequently not an essential condition for the continued
validity of the "Safeguards". But this does not exclude
the possibility, contemplated in the same paragraph of the
above-mentioned despatch of the 6 th November, 1933, that
the one was part of the consideration for the other. It
is possible to undertake an obligation of indefinite
duration in return for a service which may (or can) be
performed once and once only. In the present case the
theoretical argument, for what it is worth, would be that
the Persian Government, in return for the grant of tariff
autonomy at the end of eight years, undertook for an
indeterminate period to treat British subjects according
to a certain code. Moreover no stipulation exists, either
in the text of the treaty or in the "Safeguards" note, to
the effect that the obligations undertaken in those two
instruments should have the same duration. The termination
of/