890.0145/6–149
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Saudi Arabia
No. 60
Sir: Reference is made to the Embassy’s despatches Nos. 142 and 147, dated May 28 and June 1, 1949,1 respectively.
Saudi Arabian Decree No. 6/4/5/3711 of May 28, 1949 regarding the territorial waters of Saudi Arabia has been under consideration in the Department with a view to determining the desirability of United States reservations thereto. Certain of the legal aspects of the then proposed Decree were pointed out in the Department’s telegram No. 99 of March 16, 1949. Since the Decree proceeds upon legal principles at variance with those traditionally supported by the United States it is considered necessary to interpose reservations thereto on behalf of this Government to the extent that the Decree contains provisions which are not supported by accepted principles [Page 158] of international law. Accordingly, it is requested that you forward to the Foreign Ministry a note setting forth the following reservations:2
“The United States has taken note of Decree No. 6/4/5/3711 issued by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on May 28, 1949, concerning the territorial waters of Saudi Arabia, and finds itself compelled to take exception to certain provisions thereof, deeming such provisions to be unsupported by accepted principles of international law, and to reserve all its rights and the rights of its nationals with respect thereto, namely:
- 1.
- All provisions to the effect that the inland waters of the Kingdom include waters outside of ports, harbors, bays, and other inclosed arms of the sea along its coast; and
- 2.
- All provisions to the effect that the coastal sea, i.e., the marginal sea, of the Kingdom extends seaward of a belt of three nautical miles along its coast or around its islands.”
You will note that these reservations are specific enough to cover all the legal principles which are unacceptable to the United States but at the same time are sufficiently general to leave for future determination, as the need arises, the question of specific rules of base line measurement. The Department prefers to avoid, as unnecessary in connection with the United States reservations to the Decree, the stipulation of the particular principles of international law applicable to the determination of base lines. The Department will, however, be prepared to furnish advice in this respect should the Saudi Arabian Government require it. It is suggested that any questions in this regard be forwarded to the Department for instructions.
The following is offered for the Embassy’s background information in respect of the considerations underlying the United States reservations to the Decree.
Among other things, the Decree establishes a six-mile coastal sea (marginal belt) as opposed to the three-mile zone uniformly supported [Page 159] by the United States. It provides for a zone of inland waters extending twelve miles or farther seaward from the mainland, and implies that all bays are inland waters regardless of headland width. Moreover, the proviso in Article 9 implies a fisheries control of unspecified area over the high seas.
A number of world-wide interests of the United States would be affected, were the United States to be considered, through inaction, as having acquiesced in all the provisions of the Decree, e.g., fisheries, air commerce, shipping, and naval. In this connection it should be noted that under international law there is no right of innocent passage accorded to foreign vessels in inland waters; and no right of innocent passage accorded to air commerce in the air space above inland or territorial waters. The effect upon our fisheries alone of closure of coastal waters in the western hemisphere of a belt of from six to eighteen miles would be considerable. It is apparent, therefore, that the importance of United States reservations to the Saudi Arabian Decree lies not only in this Government’s specific interests off Saudi Arabia but also in the fact that, otherwise, the United States would lend encouragement to the use of the Decree as a precedent by a world in which a veritable epidemic of claims over the high seas has occurred since 1945.
The United States has been attempting to hold the line for the three-mile limit and to this end it recently reserved all rights in respect of high seas claims of other states as follows:
| a) Mexico—1948 | (9 mile claim) |
| b) Argentina—1948 | (epicontinental sea claim) |
| c) Chile—1948 | ( |
| d) Peru—1948 | (200 mile claim) |
| e) Costa Rica—1948 | ( |
Moreover, on April 22, 1935, the United States formally protested the Iranian law of July 15, 1934 which purported to establish a six-mile territorial waters zone. Acquiescence by the United States in the Saudi Arabian Decree would not be readily understood by these states.
In June, 1949 the Department was informed by the American Embassy in London3 that the British Foreign Office was preparing to protest this Decree. It would seem that the British must necessarily protest it in order to avoid prejudicing the case against Norway they are now bringing before the International Court of Justice which involves the validity of Norwegian claims based upon principles similar in some respects to the base line measurement provisions of the Saudi [Page 160] Arabian Decree. The Department has informed the British Embassy in Washington and the American Embassy in London of our intention to enter reservations to the Decree and of the text of the reservations. You may, in your discretion, discuss this matter with the British Embassy in Jidda. It has been decided, however, that the United States action should be independent of that to be taken by the British in order to avoid the impression of American-British collusion.
Please inform the Department by telegram when the Embassy’s note has been delivered to the Foreign Ministry.4 It is also important that the Department be promptly informed of all developments.
Very truly yours,
- Latter not printed; but see footnote 4, p. 133.↩
- The suggestion to enter reservations to the Saudi Arabian decree on territorial waters seems to have been raised for the first time in the Department in a memorandum of September 15 from Warren F. Looney, of the Office of the Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State for Fisheries and Wildlife (U/FW), to Mr. Sanger. The latter’s replying memorandum of October 18 supported Mr. Looney’s suggestion. Both papers are filed under 890.0145/6–149. Of further interest is a memorandum of October 26 by Wilbert M. Chapman of U/FW to Frederick H. Await of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs (890.0145/10–2649). The Department’s position on the situation was conveyed to Denis A. Greenhill, First ‘Secretary of the British Embassy, on November 3 (memorandum of conversation by Edward G. Piatt, Jr., of the Office of British Commonwealth and Northern European Affairs, 890.0145/11–349) and to London on November 30 (airgram 1235, 890.0145/6–1049). The airgram noted that “The Department is informing the British Embassy in Washington of its proposed action and that it is considered advisable for this action to be taken independently of the British protest, in order to avoid the appearance of American-British collusion.”↩
- In telegram 2248, June 10, from London, not printed.↩
- Ambassador Childs presented an appropriate note to Yusuf Yassin on December 22. The latter indicated that “as three-mile limit principle had not been universally accepted Saudi Arabian Government would probably follow example of other states which had departed from it. … I remarked I had thought our relations with Saudi Arabian Government somewhat closer than some countries which had departed from three-mile principle and I wished to raise question whether in view our extensive maritime and other interests which ran risk of being adversely affected Saudi Arabian Government wished to follow principle which might prejudice these US interests. … Yusuf said Saudi Arabian Government wished to cooperate with US to greatest extent possible which might not prejudice its own interests.” (telegram 740, December 22, 2 p. m., from Jidda, 890.0145/12–2249)↩