Coll 17/15(1) 'Perso-Iraq Relations: Persia-Iraq frontier; Persia's claim in the Shatt-el-Arab' [‎150v] (311/961)

complain, was not mentioned in the Iraqi request (Reply II, p. 3), a pp e
to me that this protocol strongly supports my Government’s case. It provirJ
for the appointment of a commission composed of the delegates of the tw S
Governments to meet in Constantinople, charged with the task of establishin 0
the frontier. How was this to be done ? By article 3 of the protocol the work
of the commission shall have as its basis the clauses of the Treaty of Erzernn)
concluded in 1263 (1847). The Persian Government say that “ unlike tir’
non-existent treaty of 1847, the Protocol of Tehran constitutes in form a regular
engagement ” (Reply II, p. 3). I am glad that there is at least one international
instrument of which the Persian Government recognise the validity, but I find
it difficult to follow the rest of the argument in the reply (II, pp. 3-4). ]y seen]s
to me that the Protocol of Tehran expressly recognises the Treaty of Erzerum
and in mentioning the year 1847 merely follows the common practice of referrip
to treaties by the date of their signature. The commission provided for by the
Protocol of Tehran met in 1912, but did not progress satisfactorily, and the next
year the Protocol of Constantinople was concluded between Great Britain Pmis
and turkey.
This document, which is set out in Appendix Ha of the request, defines the
boundary in some detail, mainly by reference to geographical features, and
provides for a Delimitation Commission consisting of representatives of each of
the signatory Powers with power to the mediating commissioners to decide
finally on disputed questions.
the Persian Government, here again, deny the validity of this international
agreement, as well as of everything done under it. It is to be observed, in the
first place, that the Protocol of Constantinople is, on the face of it, just as much
a regular engagement” as the Protocol of Tehran. Just as the signatories
were perfectly entitled to make the Tehran Agreement, so they were perfectly
entitled, when that agreement proved to be unworkable, to enter into a fresh
agreement.
There is no foundation, in my Government’s view, for any of the arguments
advanced by the Persian Government against the binding character of the
Constantinople Protocol. It is said that the protocol goes beyond the Treaty of
rzerum as regards the frontier line. As a matter of fact, the protocol is based
upon the treaty, to which it refers, and the line described follows closely what, as
a result or the investigations already made, was thought to be the Erzerum line,
e submission for my Government is that the frontier defined in the Protocol of
ons antmople, and as delimited on the spot by the commission set up under the
pro oco is based upon the treaty, and, substantially speaking, merely gives
P^ a . c / ca e ^ ec ^ f 0 terms. But obviously this is a very complicated question
which cannot be examined here and now by the Council.
e question whether the line fixed under the Constantinople Protocol
conespon s with the line laid down by the Treaty of Erzerum is only relevant
^T 1011 Wltil Persian arguments, namely, the contention that the
v 0( ? w aS 1 ? lva ^ 1 ^ because the Persian Constitution requires parliamentary
rv£j? Va 8r . c ^ an & es m tbe boundaries of the State. The first answer of my
ls . the protocol did not change the boundaries as laid down by
j-j i _f n existing trepty, namely, the Treaty of Erzerum. But if the protocol
WpmhtSLrn 6 ° UI l < ? aries ’ I would point out, in the first place, that the Persian
qo tw tiL -p 6 ^ a jl ls wa . s to abeyance from December 1911 to December 1914,
onv vnliH o ersian contention amounts to saying that Persia could not enter into
he co pt greement affecting its frontiers during this period, which can hardly
to comnlv wui? ar p ? 11 ^ 1S Ptont, however, I submit with confidence that failure
tion dooQ nni qN ational provisions as to parliamentary approval or ratifica-
renularlv cooclnH 0 ^ va tohty, under international law, of a treaty or protocol
case orovidch f ded doeS not in terms refer to th ese matters, or, as in this
case, provided for ratification at all.
Del i m it a t?orP fw ^ ?^ stor y of the frontier it must be remembered that the
Constantinonlc inmiSblon was duly constituted, as provided by the Protocol of
months from Vnrf P r8C88( ^ ec [ to due course to the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . For nine
painstaking carp •? Ct0 j er —^he commission proceeded with the mos
the commission «] CG a ? ld mai> k the frontier on the spot. The records of
considered everv n° W f ^ thoroughness and impartiality with which they
appeals that were 1011 la ! se h> an d, incidentally, they show the constan
a e, particularly by the Persian delegate, to the Treaty o