'File 35/85 III A 10 French Flag Question' [‎46v] (103/610)

conclude the matter, for, as has already been pointed out, naturalization abroad
is not binding on the State of origin, unless by the laws or the tacit absent of that
State the right to alter allegiance is admitted, nor is birth in French territory of
foreign parents conclusive of French nationality, and return to and settlement
in the country of the father's origin would be a sufficient election not to rely on
the accident of birth.
France has not supplied, and says that she is not bound to supply, any in
formation whatever as to any of her alleged proteges which would enable the
Tribunal to answer any of the above questions. But if the information cannot
be supplied her claim 'to protect fails, and her past interference with the Sultan s
authority over such persons stands confessed as an unwarranted interference with
his territorial jurisdiction.
THE EFFECT OF " FRANCISATION."
It is now proposed to consider what France claims to be the result, in Oman
of the francisation of an Arab dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. owned by an Omani. Consideration has
already been given to the French claim of exclusive or concurrent rights to
police vessels flying the French flag in Oman waters. But it is also necessary
to deal with the effect claimed on land,
It is submitted that it is clear beyond all controversy that a grant to a vessel
of the right to fly the French flag confers on the owner, master, and crew when
on shore no immunity whatever from the jurisdiction of the local Sovereign.
It is impossible to allow the claim which appears to be put forward by
France that the owners and master
'* ContreTMdtnoire." p. as. an (i crew of any dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. under the French
flag are entitled to the same exterritoriality as Frenchmen, and that this privilege
extends to the members of their family in direct line.
No authority for any such claim has been put forward; it is opposed to
Cvery principle of la\v.
CONCLUSION.
The facts disclosed in the former documents have now been reviewed, and
the conclusions to be drawn therefrom with respect to the French claims _ have
been discussed. His Majesty's Government have refrained from contradicting
in minute detail all the allegations contained in the French documents, the
majority of which appear to them to be irrelevant to the questions at issue, but
they are fully prepared to elucidate, by oral or written statement or arguments,
or production of further documents, any points as to which the Tribunal may
require more light.
They venture to submit that the statements and arrangements of the British
Case and Counter-Case have not been met in any way by those in the French
44 Memoire " and " Contre-Memoire," and that they are amply justified in main
taining that the claim of France to protect 1,000 Omani Arabs and their
families in their native country from their natural Sovereign is unwarranted by
Treaty, usage, or international law, and amounts to an tittack on the indepen^
dence of the Sultan, which is inconsistent with the obligations of France both
towards the Sultan and Great Britain.
His Majesty's Government submit that a review of all the evidence and
documents establishes the correctness of the following propositions, which are the
s ame as those set out in the original British Case :
"1. No subject of the Sultan of Muscat acquires any right to, the status of
a French protege under the Treaty of 1844 by the fact that he is the owner,
captain, or a member of the crew of a native vessel which has, by whatever
means, obtained French papers or flag.
5i0