'File 19/191 III (C 56) Bahrain, Persian Claim To' [‎126r] (270/396)

fO
at any gi^en period the conditions required for
the ©itercise of sovereignty are fulfilled,«
It seems to me that what Mr. Muber says applies to
Bahrein. Ihe elements necessary for the conetltution
of sovereignty In regard to Bahrein are at the present
day made up of the addition of (a) M.M.G.» R right under
tiie exclusive treaties in force elnce 1880, via. control
oi loreign relatione and jurisdiction over foreigners,
and (b) the government of the native affairs of the
territory still left with the Sheik. Bahrein is a State
maer mUl8ii protection and is really under the sovereignty
cf H . m ,.. from tuo point of view of international law.
xhe only c1 liois:;i which occurs to me of the very admirable
way in ;hich our Ga.se has been presented in the past and
of the arguments in the material laid before the Law Officers
is that nucn too mucn stress has been laid upon the
independence 1 ' of the Uieik of Bahrein, Up to 1©80 this
was correct; after that it is not really legally correct
to soate that the Uieik is Independent. ruler who has
no control of his external relations is not fully inaependant
under International law, We have rightly stressed the
complete absence of effective Persian sovereignty during
all the relevant periods, but I do not think we have made
quite enough of the evidence of effective exercise of
sovereignty by H,!- ,0., which la really equally striking}
suoh 8S deposition of unsatisfactory Sheiks, the control
®x©rciged over them by political residents, and the fact
tdftt it is H,M,G, who have resisted the claims not merely of
Ptpsia but of lurkey and Muscat and the Wahabis.
'fhe second point Is that Persia has based her case
0r i the alleged doctrine that a State cannot lose sovereignty
over/