"ملف A/5 مصائد اللؤلؤ بالخليج العربي" [ظ‎‎١‎٢] (٦٢/٢٤)

As regards the fisheries beyond lerritcmal waters, we tliink tliat a
distinction must be drawn between the hanks where the tribes have
practised pearl fishing and the deep zcate?'s in which no such fishery
has been carrisd on by them.
As regards the pearl banks, we think that, as a matter of inter
national law, they are capable of being the property ol tiie tribes to the
exclusion of all nations. In addition to the passage cited trom Vattel,
reference may be made to Puffendorfs Treatise " de jure Naturae efc
gentium," Book IV., Chapter V., Section 7, and to the recent work of
Professer Westlake, "International Law," Part 1., chapter 1), at pages
186 and 187, and the case of the pro lectio a of the Ceylon pearl banks
is a striking illustration of the assertion of this right iti practice.
Whether sueh rights, in (act, exist with regard to these particular pearl
banks in the Persian Gulf is a question the answer to which cannot be
c^iven with any certainty, as it depends on the evidence available of
historical facts with reference to the enjoyment of these fisheries hy the
tribes and the exelusion ol" others from them. As far as we can judge,
upon the materials before us, we think that there are grounds lor
asserting the existence of such an exclusive right, and we do not think
that, in point of law, the fact that the enjoyment was by the tribes in
common would prevent the acquisition of the right in question. Having
regard to the relations of His Majesty's Government with the tribes on
the west shore of the Persian Gulf, we think that the existence of this
exclusive right may be properly maintained on their behalf by His
Majesty's Government
With regard to the deep waters in which pearl fishing lias not been
carried on by the tribes we think the case is different. There is here no
defined area*at the bottom of the sea over which the right of fishing
has been exercised to the exclusion of other nations, as there is some
ground for saying was the case with regard to the pearl banks. We
cannot see thai the right claimed by the tribes to exclude other nations
from these deeper waters could be asserted with any reasonable chance of
success.
(2) Having regard to the importance of protecting the deeper waters
and to the fact that for the reasons above indicated it cannot be
regarded as certain that the right, even to the pearl banks, could be
established to the satisfaction of any international tribunal, we think
that it would be preferable to discourage foreign interference by refusing
supplies, &c., as suggested in the papers before us. If such measures
prove inadequate it may be necessary, having obtained the authority of
the Chiefs for this purpose, to compel the removal of vessels engaged in
fishing on the pearl banks. Of course, measures of this kind must be
taken with caution, as international complications might result irom
any precipitate action. It might also be practicable—whether it should
be done or not is a matter of policy—to raise the question in a form
suitable for decision by the Hague Tribunal.
Fishing within the territorial waters may, of course, be prevented.
Generally. We desire to add that, having regard to the importance
of the question to the tribes, and the fact that we cannot be certain
of establishing the right claimed, it is probably desirable that the fishing
by foreigners should, if possible, be indirectly stopped without raising
the question internationally.
We have, &c.,
r. b. fjnlay,
The Right Hon. Edwahd Carson.
the Marquess of Lansdowne, K.G.,
&c., &c., &c.