PZ 4718/1934 ‘Historical Memorandum on Bahrein.’ [‎21r] (41/48)

39
Persia has on various occasions m i -■
the enrlv hixtnw nf TtoK, • • tlle P ast appealed to
tne early History ot Bahrein m support of her claim that
U is^ historically Persian territory. Since 1930, too certain
Persian newspapers, presumably inspired, have dealt at
considerable ength with the history of Bahrein in the more
oi less remote past, and have supported their statements
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
to check these statements in detail, or to conduct elaborate
researches into the writings of Arab geographers and others
iiom which further information might he secured. But it is
arguable that the position of the islands prior to 1783 is
at most only of very indirect importance in the present
connection. The essential weakness in the Persian claim
is, it is suggested, that there has been no effective exercise
of authority in the islands by Persia since her expulsion
in 1/83, and that the Sheikhs, who originally established
themselves by conquest, have now acquired a prescriptive
title, based on an uninterrupted occupation of 1/30 years
by the present ruling family.
(2) The Absence of Persian Consent to the Detachment
of Bahrain from Persia.
The Persian Government, in paragraph 2 of their Note
of 2nd August 1928 (Appendix B), invited attention to
“the following 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.
The argument put forward by the Persian Government
under 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 temtory
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 wnicli
no Persian authority has been exercised in their dominions,
can be affected by the mere consideration that the 1 ersian
Government have not set their signature to a document
formally recognising the fact of their independence. n
paragraph 7 of the same Note His Majesty s Government
cite historical precedents to show that the theory o ie
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 oi ^
concluded by Captain Bruce with the representative of the
" Prince Governor A Prince of the Royal line who also acted as Governor of a large Iranian province during the Qājār period (1794-1925). of Shiraz are set out m paragraph
above? As will be seen, Captain Bruce concluded it without