File 200/1928 Pt 9 'Persia: Anglo-Persian Relations: Treaty Negotiations' [‎23v] (51/1076)

C) Date of the conclusion of the Anglo-Persian Tariff Autonomy Treaty.
Commercial Agreement ot ^^jgjj^Jodification 1 the 1903 Convention). ^
Scribed if necessary as^ b q thg decisio reached that its present
validity was^open to ' se ™|^ Bushir^l^ainst 1 the 'express
olequently, it was decided that His
Maiesty’ Minister should merely remind the Persians of its existence, and leave
H to them to say whether it should be alluded to in the present article
4 From the outset, however, the Persians set their faces agains he British
nronosal In doin^ so they appear to have been actuated by two mam motives:
m the view that certain instruments, such as the 1882 Slavery Convention, were
incompatible with their national dignity and already for all practical purposes
dead letters, and (2) the fear that if they agreed to anything less sweeping than
an “ omnibus ” abrogation on the lines of their own draft, they might later find
themselves still bound by the provisions of some forgotten agreement.
5 As regards (1) it may be observed that in the most recent discussion with
Teymourtache D (in February 1932) on the subject of the Slavery Article itself, the
ex-Minister of Court himself put forward a draft which mentioned the desire
of the High Contracting Parties to conclude an agreement ‘ ‘ in place of the 1882
convention.” If this convention can be mentioned once in the treaty, it can surely
be mentioned twice. . .
6. Motive (2) is much more serious, since m refusing to agree to an
‘‘ omnibus abrogation article, His Majesty s (xovernnient ha\e, in fact, been
actuated (apart from considerations of form) by the exactly opposite motive,
namely, the fear that some forgotten agreement of value may thereby be
unintentionally swept away.
7. Realising that these conflicting apprehensions had brought about a
complete deadlock, the Foreign Office, after a careful review of the existing treaty
instruments, came to the conclusion that it would in all probability be necessary
to take the risk involved in accepting a general abrogation clause. They
accordingly proposed, in their letter of the 27th September, 1982, to the India
Office and Dominions Office (copies to Colonial Office and Admiralty) that
Sir R. Hoare should be authorised to agree, in the last resort, to an article on the
following lines {i.e., on the Persian model, but with the specific exclusion of
frontier agreements):—
f
“ Les Hautes Parties Contractantes conviennent que tons les traites.
conventions et accords, n’ayant pas trait aux questions des frontieres.
conclus entre elles avant le 10 mai 1928( 1 ) seront consideres comme abroges
definitivement a partir du depot des ratifications du present traite.”
8. This solution was not, however, to be resorted to until a further effort
had been made to secure acceptance of the original proposals of His Majesty s
Government, and in particular the following two possible solutions were to be
explored before resorting to the “ omnibus ” abrogation scheme :—
(a) the words “ shall cease to be binding ” (“ ne seront plus en vigueur )
might, it was suggested, be abandoned in favour of “ auront cesse d’etre eu
vigueur which latter phrase does not indicate so precisely at what moment
the instruments lapsed; or
(b) the High Contracting Parties might admit their difference of opinion in
some such clause as the following :—
I he High Contracting Parties, who have been unable to agree on the
question of the actual validity of the following instruments, agree that they
will no longer be in force after the entry into force of the present treaty.
9. It may be noted that while (6), and possibly (a) also, meet the Persian
objection referred to m paragraph 4 (1) above, neither of them meets the mom
serious objection m paragraph 4 (2).
10. The Government of India have now signified their concurrence in the
a ove-mentioned proposals of the Foreign Office, but certain points recently raised
by the Dominions Office are still under consideration.
11. When a decision has finally been reached regarding the form of th e
article, it will be necessary to draft, in consultation with the Dominions, an