INTRODUCTION
TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT UNDER STUDY:
On 20 May 1934, the two kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Yemen signed the Treaty Islamic Friendship and Arab Brotherhood, also known as the Treaty of TaifJ It contains provisions providing for the cessation of the existing state of war, cession of territory, establishment of boundary line and regulation of general relations between the two Arabian states. In the autumn of 1991 ,the Yemeni Council of Ministers ,in an emergency session, declared the Yemeni government intention to terminate the 1934 Treaty of Тш/between Yemen and Saudi Arabia on the grounds that it was concluded "illegally", fundamentally breached by the Saudi side, and expired under the force of its own fixed duration provision. The Yemeni statement came in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of the same year and subsequent to the "expulsion" of
; Named after the Saudi summer resort town of Taif, near Mecca t where the treaty was signed.
8
nearly one million Yemeni nationals working in Saudi Arabia for alleged Yemen's complicity with the Iraqi action. The declaration, though the boldest hitherto, was merely a restatement of long-held official and semi official stance of successive governments of both monarchical and subsequent republican Yemen. In rebuttal , the Saudi Arabia government repeated its assertion that the treaty was concluded legally and its provisions continue to remain in force. The purpose of this thesis is to attempt to examine the arguments of both sides in regard to their legal validity under international law. The reasons behind the two opposing claims are ,as they must be, appraised in this study according to the law of treaties through the application of its pertinent principles to the facts of each particular argument raised . The prolonged Saudi-Yemeni dispute over the treaty ofTaif is almost exclusively territorial. Dating back almost to the very date of its conclusion more than sixty years ago, it is a fact that article 4 of the treaty of Taif establishing the boundary line constitutes for Saudi Arabia the raison d'etre to maintain
9
validity of the treaty ,and for Yemen the raison d'etre to terminate it.
Legal arguments both in favor and against, the validity of the treaty of Taif, are abound, though those, in favor, tend to relate generally to procedural formalities required under international law for the conclusion of valid international agreements i.e. full powers, signature and ratification. There are forceful arguments that can be raised against the Treaty of Taif'm whole or in part as being void or viodable. They focus chiefly on invoking doctrinal legal grounds that may be applicable to the historical and political conditions at the time of the conclusion of the treaty and subsequent application of its provisions such as state coercion, material breach ,fundamental change of circumstances, fixed duration period and reversion of ancient title rights.
Scientific and Practical Significance of the Study : The 1934 Treaty of Taif between Saudi Arabia and Yemen presents the examiner with an almost unique case raising complex legal questions on both procedural and substance
10
matters of law thereby underlying the scientific and practical significance of its analysis.
Firstly, this dissertation constitutes ,as far as known to the writer, the first systematic legal study of the treaty of Taif, in both English and Arabic languages.
Secondly, the treaty appears ,in the first instance, to conform to the definition of international "convention" contained in the 1969 Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (VCT) and thus, constitutes "an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law." However, both Saudi Arabia and Yemen were not members of the League of Nations at the time of the conclusion of the treaty and neither is a signatory or party to the VCT. Moreover, the Treaty of Taif itself was concluded prior to the 1945 UN Charter and the VCT's entry into force in 1980. Thus, both conventional and customary law doctrines and the question of their retroactivity become equally relevant to the study.. Thirdly, the treaty is unique among its class , in that it contains seemingly contradictory provisions. On one hand it provides for
11 the end of the existing state of war and establishment of
permanent peace between the two parties, and create a boundary line defined as final and permanent. On the other, it contains a clause expressly limiting the legal force of the treaty to unusually short fixed duration of twenty years from the date of its ratification , after which either party may choose to terminate it altogether.
Fourthly, the Treaty of Taif is at once a peace and territorial treaty containing provisions creating future rights and binding obligations involving cessation of an existing state of war (the Preamble) ,making territorial cession (article 2) and establishing a boundary line (article 4). Yet, it also contains the seemingly irreconcilable and unusual fixed duration clause (article 22) which appears to defeat the whole purpose of the treaty as an international instrument establishing permanent peace and final territorial settlement. The treaty becomes legally liable to termination under the force of its own provisions sanctioned by international conventional law in the form of Article 54 of the VCT granting the right of renunciation "in
12
conformity with the provisions" contain in the treaty itself. As far as is known to the writer , the treaty of Taif is the only modern peace and territorial instrument that also contains in its text fixed duration clauses. It is this fact, in conjunction with the others stated above that makes this study innovative and original with real and potential scientific and practical contribution to the field oflegal research pertaining to existing and future territorial and boundary disputes in regions like the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula in particular, where they traditionally constitute the main source of threat to regional peace and stability.
For this purpose ,it will shown through analysis of conventional and customary law and international courts decisions that treaties establishing peace and territorial boundaries, but containing fixed duration provision, as the Treaty of Taif does , appear to be exempted from the rules of international law providing grounds for renouncing treaties under this or ,in general, any other legal grounds. The finality and permanency of boundary lines established under such treaties becomes
13
generally unaffected by conditional clauses contained therein. Furthermore, Article 8 of the treaty and the Covenant of Arbitration annexed to it, reconfirmed later by the 1995 MOU, provides for compulsory settlement mechanism to be invoked unilaterally by either party in case of dispute arising from the provisions of the treaty including those involving territorial concession and boundary line. Thus , Yemen ,in principle, may declare that an international legal dispute exists with Saudi Arabia and initiate the necessary procedures of submitting the entire dispute to judicial settlement from which the latter party will find it exceedingly difficult to legally extricate itself. However in view of the prominence accorded to boundary treaties in conventional and customary law supported by recent international courts decisions such as the 1962 Thailand v. Cambodia case and the 1994 Chad v. Libya case, the outcome of any potential judicial or arbitral settlement body will in all probability confirm the doctrine of finality and permanency of the boundary line established by the treaty of Та if. Main Conclusions
14
The principle conclusion of the dissertation affirms the sanctity of the doctrine of the finality and permanency of boundary lines established by treaties such as the Treaty of Taif. The boundary line established under article 4 of the 1934 Treaty of Taif between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, being the raison d'etre of the whole enterprise, is an undisputed long established fact having a life of its own, independent of the legal fate of the treaty itself . As the subject of the treaty of Taif, article 4 boundary line and its resulting territorial adjustment, remains and its existence and legal status may not dependent upon the legality or the duration of the treaty under which it was concluded. Once agreed upon by the two contracting parties in the 1934 treaty and irrespective of the legal and political conditions under which the treaty was concluded , article 4 boundary line stands for the sake of maintaining the fundamental principle of the stability and inviolability of boundaries, the importance of which
^ has been sanctioned by customary and conventional law and repeatedly
emphasized by international arbitral and judicial precedents. As demonstrated recent ICJ decisions, the boundary line created by a treaty concluded by mutual assent or imposed on involuntary basis, achieves permanence and continues to remain in force even after the treaty itself ceased to exist. The exercise by one party of the option to legally renounce the treaty of Taif as by invoking „ for example the fixed duration
ш clause , will not affect the status of Article 4 boundary line which
15 continues to remain valid and permanent.
This ,however, will not prevent the Saudi Arabia and Yemen to mutually decide to abrogate the treaty of Taif altogether and seek to supercede it with a new comprehensive agreement settling once and for all by peaceful means all thorny border issues between them especially in view of the fact that the contentious treaty does not cover about one thousand kilometers long of hitherto undefined boundary between Saudi Arabia and the former PDRY(South Yemen).
Methodology:
In quest to reach the conclusion above , the dissertation depends heavily on the examination of all documentary and other material sources, publicly available, pertinent to the factual and legal aspects of the Treaty of Taif , the boundary line it established and the subsequent bilateral agreements relating to its main object and purpose from the 1936 Boundary Commission Reports and 1937 Agreement to the 1973 Communique and the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding. Relevant published official British ,Saudi and Yemeni materials and academic works provide the legal factual history of the case which then is subjected to rigorous and systematic legal analysis and appraisal in light of customary and conventional law of treaties, arbitral and judicial cases and commentaries of prominent publicists. The bibliography at the end of the dissertation
16 contains a detailed list of the documents, references, court cases and
academic works consulted here . STRUCTURE
The dissertation is divided into an Introduction, five chapters, Summary and Conclusions, Appendices and Bibliography. Each chapter is ,in turn, subdivided into appropriate sections and subsection . Chapter One provides the framework where Section I surveys the legal environment as embodied in the 1969 Vienna Convention On the Law of Treaties and the Article 38 ofthelCJ Statute where hierarchical priority accorded to international agreements as the principal source of international law. Section II explains treaty formulation process involving negotiation , consent to be bound Ratification .entry into force Reservations, modification and registration. Section III deals with the application of treaties and their conformity with subsequent agreements relating to the same subject matter. Textual and contextual interpretation of treaties are subject of Section IV.
Section V is devoted to the topic of invalid treaties such as those entered into by persons lacking the capacity to contract, concluded under state duress or coercion or corruption of state representative, or involving substantial error. Section VI discusses the consequences of treaties deemed invalid. Section VII analyzes the all important issue of renouncing or otherwise
17
terminating treaties . It studies the basic methods under which treaties may be declared void or voidable thus liable to termination ^enunciation ,withdrawal or suspension by one or more of the contracting party states. These methods include termination under the terms of the treaty itself such as fixed duration clause, by explicit or tacit agreement, implied right of renunciation , suspension due to fundamental breach, a consequence of fundamental change of circumstances , due to impossibility of performance , emergence of new peremptory norm of international law(i.e. jus cogens), or as a result of outbreak of war between the parties. Section VIII discusses briefly with the consequences of terminating, withdrawing from or suspending of treaties.
Chapter Two deals exclusively with the factual legal history relative to the conclusion of the 1934 treaty of Taif and its subsequent related instruments . Section I outlines the salient features of the treaty of Taif pertaining to provisionsdealing with cessation of the state of war, cession of territory, modification and extension, the Covenant of Arbitration and the exchange of letters upon signing the treaty of Taif. Section II discusses the related bilateral agreements concluded pursuant to or subsequent to the 1934 treaty such as the 1937 General Agreement for the Settlement of Frontier Questions and Regulation of Movement of Subjects between the two countries, the 1953 renewal agreement,the 1973 joint communique and the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding.

Получить работу