'Muscat Dhows Arbitration. In the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague. Grant of the French Flag to Muscat Dhows. The case on behalf of the Government of His Britannic Majesty.' [‎81v] (175/208)

8
RIGHTS OF POLICE AND JURISDICTION
IN TERRITORIAL WATERS.
The British arguments founded on Article ^p^Taire^
XLII of the Brussels Act were (1) that this p. 21.
Article does not give, evea to the Powers which
ratify it, any power of police in the waters of
other ratifying Powers, and fully recognizes and
preserves, as a rule of international law, the
territorial sovereignty of these Powers, and (2) that
as neither France nor Muscat was a party to the
Article, France could not be justified by the
Brussels Act in making the claim to police or
surveillance in Muscat waters which was made !^ se '
pp. < J, i o.
in 1902.
His Majesty's Government made no direct
reference in the Argument to the Anglo-Muscat
Treaty of 1873, having already dealt fully with
that Treaty in the British Counter-Case (p. 33).
In the Counter-Case it was necessary to deal with
the contentions of the French u Memoire" (pp.
48, 56) as to the character and effect of this
Treaty. His Majesty's Government see no
ground for withdrawing the observations made
as to the tardiness of the French objections to British Counter-
this Treaty, and without entering into the technical ase, p *
question of "prescription" mentioned in the
" Conclusions Complementaires," p. 21, submit
that the fact that these objections were first put
forward in this Case in 1905 affords a very strong
argument against their soundness.
His Majesty's Government repeat that what
ever rights of search in Muscat waters Great
Britain may have are conventional, and depend
on the Treaties with Muscat now in force, in
cluding that of 1873. France appears to have "Conclusions
, , Complementaires
misunderstood the English decision m the case ^ 21.
of Carr v. Fracis Times and Co., quoted on p. 34
of the British Counter-Case, and reported in the
"Law Reports (1902) Appeal Cases," p. 176.
That decision, reference to the text of which is
invited, shows that the British authorities, in
order to exercise the right to seize a British
vessel in Muscat waters, obtained the authority
of the Sultan.
In view of the comments made at pp. 21-23 of
the u Conclusions Complementaires" on the
British Argument (p. 26), with reference to the