'File 5/1 XIV Kuwait Oil Company' [‎271r] (551/570)

2. The problem raised in guestion (a) seems similar to
those which appeared in last year's correspondence regarding
tne definition of the limits of the Anglo-Iranian Oil
Company s concessional area in Persia (see in particular
Baxter's demi-official letter^ : th,e Company dated the 29th
November 1938, No.B.713'8/201 / /34). According to that
correspondence the generally recognised view with regard
to areas outside territorial waters is that the sea-bed and
the sub-soil beneath it is res nullius . but that it is
capable of acquisition by effective occupation in the same
manner as any unoccupied territory above the level of the sea,
tfris basis the Sheikh could presumably be regarded as
having only potential rights in such areas and could expect no
support from His Majesty’s Government in respect of them un vl
they had been made actual as the result of effective
occupation, and the Company could only negotiate for a
concession in respect of such rights as the Sheikh
mayji ereaft e r acquire in the area which is marked in the chart
and is not already covered by the existing concession.
But we should be glad of your views as to the reply it would
be desirable to send to Kemp on questions (a) and (b).
^ 3. It may be that there is no answer to question (c)
that would be universally accepted, but prima facie , . ’
and/