"التحكيم في قضية مراكب الداو الشراعية في مسقط. محكمة التحكيم الدائمة في لاهاي. السماح برفع الأعلام الفرنسية على مراكب الداو الشراعية في مسقط. القضية بالنيابة عن الحكومة البريطانية". [ظ‎‎٨‎٠] (٢٠٨/١٧٣)

6
IMPORTATION INTO THE CONTROVERSY
OF THE TREATY OF NOVEMBER 17,
1844.
France is in error in suggesting tliat the "Conclusions
reference in the British Argument {vide pp. 5 ppTanTlT 1168 '
and 6) to the Treaty between France and Muscat
of the 17th November, 1844, is in any sense a
fait nouveau.
That Treaty is referred to in the British Case
(pp. 6, 11), and an argument is founded on rt on
p. 24. In the French " Contre-Memoire " (p. 7)
it is contended that this Treaty is res inter alios
acta, and the references to the Treaty in the
British Argument (p. 5) are made in response to
the contentions of the French " Contre-Memoire,"
and are merely directed to establishing that it is
impossible to consider adequately the matters
submitted to the Tribunal without examining the
terms of the Treaty.
There seems also to be a misunderstanding on " Conclusions
the part of France as to the nature of the British Compl&nentaires "
argument with reference to the interpretation of
the Treaty of the 17th November, 1844. His
Majesty's Government have distinctly recognized British Argument,
that the most-favoured-nation clauses in the pp ' 5 ' 6 *
Treaties of 1844 and 1891 put France and Great
Britain on an equality. With respect to the
persons who may claim exterritoriality, whichever
Treaty gives the wider immunity establishes the
measure of the privileges both of Great Britain
and of I ranee. Great Britain makes no attempt
to diminish the rights of France under the Treaty
of 1844, and merely indicates that these rights
may be extended by the most-favoured-nation
clause of the Treaty of 1891.