"ملخص عن الخليج العربي. (الجزءان I و II)" [و‎‎١‎١] (١٢٠/٢١)

17
rpciprocally puarnnteeing tlie i n depend en oe of Maskat did not require the
British Government to abstain troni exercising piedominant intluence in
IVJaskal so long as that influence was not exerted in a wav inconsistent with
the independence of Maskat; the subsidy and the terras on which it was made
payable involved no breach of declaration ; and (2) that the British Govern
ment would be justified in punishing and even deposing a particular Sultan
who broke engagements with the British Government, the consent of Prance
not being necessary.
Another question of importance was the French flag case. The award of
the Hague Tribunal (1905) is as follows :—
(1) That before the 2nd January 3 892, France was entitled to authorise
vessels belonging to subjects of His Highness the Sultan of
Maskat to fly the French flag, only bound by her own legislation
and administrative rules;
(2) that owners of dhows, who, before 1892, had been authorised by
France to fly the French flag, retained this authorisation as long
as France renewed it to the grantee; and
(3) that after the 2nd January 1892, France was not entitled to autho
rise vessels belonging to subjects of His Highness the Sultan of
Maskat to fly the French flag, except on condition that their
owners, or fitters-out. had established, or should establish, that
they had been considered and treated by France as her " proteges "
before the year 1863; and, with regard to the effect, transference
or transmission of flags so granted, it was decided—
(1) that dhows of Maskat authorised as aforesaid to fly the French flag
were entitled in the territorial waters of Maskat to the inviolabi^
lity provided by the French Maskat Treaty of 17th November
1^44);
(2) that the authorisation to fly the French flag could not be trans
mitted or transferred to any other person, or to any other dhow,
even if belonging to the same owner; and
(3) that subjects of the Sultan of Maskat, who were owners or masters
of dhows authorised to fly the French flay, or who were members
of the crews of such vessels, or who belonged to their families,
did not enjoy, in consequence of that fact, any right of exterri
toriality which could exempt them from the sovereignty, espe
cially from the jurisdiction of His Highness the'Sultan of
Maskat.
i
9. It will have been noticed that His Majesty's Government have long
Treaty rights at Maskat. exercised a preponderant influence at
Maskat, but that this influence does not
amount to the direct control of the foreign relations of Maskat, the Sulian of
which has treaties with the United States (1833), France (1844), Franco-
British declaration (1862), Holland (1877). For present purposes, the above
treaties sutfice and notice only need be diwn to Article II of the Treaty of
1883 and Article 11 of the Treaty of 1844 and the Franco-British declaration
of 1862.
Both the French and American treaties provide that import of all kinds of
merchandise into Maskat shall be entirely free and the French treaty provides
that there should be no prohibition either of import or export of anv article.
The treaty with the Netherlands simply provides for the most-favoured-nation
treatment.
The question arises whether in view of the above articles the Sultan can,
if he desires, prohibit import of arms and ammunition into bis territory. From
page 365 of Hall's Internatioral Law a treaty becomes void "by incompatibility
with the general obligations of a State when a change has taken place in un
disputed law or in views universally held with regard to morals". It is
reasonable to argue that such a change has taken place since the above treaties.
When the treaties with France and America were concluded, the possibilitv of
Maskat becoming a centre for the distribution of weapons endangering the
peace of the Sultan 's own dominions which have been secured to him by