File 4480/1923 Pt 2 ‘Persian Gulf: Naval Incidents: Visits of British Warships to Persian Ports: Persian Territorial Waters Bill.’ [‎507v] (1025/1662)

6
this respect incorrect. Otherwise it is difficult to understand why they commenced
the frontier line where they did. ,
5. It appears evident from the text of the protocol that the commission s map
must be accepted as authoritative, as article o states that as soon as a part of the
frontier shall have been settled, that part shall be considered as fixed definitely and
shall not be liable to subsequent examination nor revision. Article 4 also says that
in case of any disagreement amongst the four commissions (Russian, British, Turkic
and Persian), the Russian and British Commissioners are to meet privately and their
decision is to be recognised as binding on all four Governments.
6. My Lords would suggest, however, that it might be possible to maintain, if
this is thought expedient, that the commission had made a mistake in starting where
they did and that it is obvious that the river does not commence at that point but
much further seaward, and that the line should be extended along the Persian shore
in accordance with the text of the protocol. In view of the possibility of the Abadan
and Abdullah banks becoming obviously^ territory in the future, there would be
obvious advantages in such an understanding being arrived at.
7. After further consideration of the information available, my Lords are of
opinion that the Abadan and ‘Abdullah banks cannot at present be regarded as
territory. This view is also supported by a paragraph in the protocol, which states
as follows
“ Turkish jurisdiction shall not be extended over portions of the Persian
coast which may be temporarily covered by the tide (‘ couvertes d’eau par la
maree ’) or through other accidental causes. Persian jurisdiction shall not be
exercised over territory which may be temporarily or accidentally uncovered by
the normal level of low water being exceeded.”
The Admiralty Sailing Directions state that Marakat Abadan has from 1 foot
to 1 fathom of water on it, but patches on its north-xvestern part dry occasionally,
and that Marakat Abdullah dries in patches at extraordinary spring tides.
8. If it is agreed that the Abadan and Abdullah banks are not territory and
that the frontier ends at the point fixed by the commission, the position would still
be liable to lead to disputes. Persia might argue that Turkish (now Iraq) national
waters ended at a line drawn from the point fixed by the commission at right angles
to the general course of the river, and that the angle formed by this line with the
general ^line of the Persian coast below this point should be bisected in order to show
where the two territorial belts met. This would apparently give Persia jurisdiction
over the whole of the channel outside the river mouth. This might be opposed by
arguing that in spite of the fact that the Marakat and Abdullah banks are not
territory, there is no doubt that the river extends to their extreme points and that, in
accordance wdth the text of the protocol, and also in accordance with general
principles of international law based, on practical necessities, the whole of the river
comes under Iraq.
9. Another argument that it might be useful to fall back on is that the line
marking the termination of Iraq national waters should be drawn from the point
fixed by the commission to South Mast, as the point to which the river bank extends
on the western side. A line bisecting the angle that such a line makes with the general
me of the Persian coast would apparently give Iraq a portion of the channel.
„ . . .Another point of interest cleared up by this original map is the question
of jurisdiction over the waters immediately in front of Abadan. In Foreign Office
et m o the 6th December, 1920, to India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , it is stated that the original map
gave Persia a strip of water facing Abadan which, it is remarked, no doubt
constituted the anchorage of that port, in the same way as is done off Mohammerah
v m accordance with the text of the protocol). The letter goes on to say that it is
clear that these two anchorages lie outside the jurisdiction of the Mesopotamian
• 3 eS 'r r i p appears evident, however, from the original map that this is
• , c ‘ .• ® rentier line follows the bank closely at Abadan itself, and only goes
/ iV€r 0 Tw^ 0 y n t0 ?\ close the four Elands between Chetait and Maaouiye,
m accordance with the text of the protocol.
nf eu together yvith a photostat copy (not on the same scale)
chart pnttino-°f € 0r ^j na J ma 1 P cc T er i n g the mouth of the river, and a copy of the
t K ed d° th « Forei gn Office with Admiralty letter of the
10th December, have been forwarded to Colonial Office and India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. .
I am, &c.
CHARLES WALKER.