Coll 28/96 ‘Persia. Judicial. Persian law regarding smuggling. Position of foreigners.’ [‎55r] (109/122)

Paragraph 7 then continues: ••it should not, however, he in
hered from ttiis that the safeguards are wholly without value
or ef i ect. His Majesty’s Government would, I am advised, he
entitled to contend that although the Persian Government may
have the right to alter the provisions of this law in matters
which concern the safeguards, they are hound, unless and until
tne law is thus altered, to observe its provisions rigidly,
and consequently to apply the safeguards fully". But if even
at the date of that despatch it was to he presumed that the
Persian Government had the right to "alter the provisions of
their law in matters which concern the safeguards", subsequent
events have considerably increased the difficulty of adopting
a contrary attitude. In the first place a considerable volume
of legislation has been placed on the statute-book in the
interval which lias radically changed the situation Since the
assurances were given; and the Persian Government thus have
ample precedents on which they could rely in the event of
any protest with regard to the present law. More important
still in this connexion would appear to be the expiry of the
Tariff Autonomy Treaty, since it was held in paragraph 4 of
Sir John Simon’s above-quoted despatch that "the strongest
argument which His Majesty’s Government could probably make for
the internationally binding character of the safeguards would
be based on the fact that they were signed on the same date as
the Tariff Autonomy Treaty and on the contention that they were
tbua really part of the consideration for that Treaty". Thus
though the expiry of that Treaty would hardly seem to be a
co elusion factor is the situation, it would yet appear to have
shorn/