sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ottoman Empire, Serdar (Ottoman rank), Sublime Porte

(Communicated to the Council and the Mem­ bers of the League). C.22. M.10. 1935. VII. Erratum to English text.

Geneva, January 14th, 1935.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

REQUEST BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT

UNDER ARTICLE 11, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE COVENANT

Communication from the Persian Government

In Line 4, paragraph 8, of page 3, instead

of "constitutes a formal and regular undertaking" read

’’constitutes from the point of view of form a regular

under taking .

Series of Publications VII. POLITICAL 1935. VII. 1. Erratum

Series of League of Nations Publications

VII. POLITICAL S' D. N. 935 (F.) 780 (A.) 1/35 — Imp. de la T. de G. 1935. VII. 1. rf’onirnunicated to the Council and Official No. : C. 22. M. 1 0 .1935.VII. the Members of the League.]

Geneva, January 11th, 1935.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

REQUEST BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT under Article 11, Paragraph 2, of the Covenant

COMMUNICATION FROM THE PERSIAN GOVERNMENT

Note by the Secretary-General :

The Secretary-General has the honour to circulate to the Council and the Members of the League the following letter and memorandum from the Persian Government, dated January 8th, 1935.

[.]

Min ist r y fo r F o r e ig n A f f a ir s . Geneva, January 8 th, 1935.

Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 5th, 1934, forwarding to me the communication sent to you by the Government of for the purpose of drawing the Council’s attention, under Article 11, paragraph 2 , of the Covenant, to the difficulties that have arisen for some time past between the two States in regard to their common frontier. I beg to transmit to you herewith a statement of the Persian Government’s point of view, with the request that you will be so good as to bring it to the notice of the Members of the Council. A copy of this memorandum and its annexes will be handed this evening to His Excellency the Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs.

(Signed) B. K a z e m i, Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Series of League of Nations Publications VII. POLITICAL s. D. N. 935 (F.) 780 (A.) 1/35 — Imp. de la T. de G. 1935. VII. 1. REPLY TO THE REQUEST OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

By letter dated November 29th, 1934, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq referred to the Council of the League of Nations a request which calls for the following observations : It appears from the Royal Government’s request that, according to its statement, the agents of the Imperial Government have violated the frontier of Iraq. Actually, however they have always remained within the Imperial territory, while there have been numerous encroachments thereon by Iraqi agents and tribes, causing very considerable damage and some loss of life (Annex I). According to the Government of Iraq, the boundary was fixed by the Treaty of Erzerum of 1847 (Annex II) and by the Protocol signed at on November 4th, 1913 (Annex III), by the Grand and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Ottoman and the Ambassador of Persia, on behalf of the two Parties, and by the Ambassadors of Great Britain and , on behalf of their respective countries in the capacity of mediating Powers. In virtue of this Protocol, the delimitation was carried out on the ground in 1914 by a Commission composed of representatives of Persia, the , Great Britain, and Russia.1 In the view of the Iraqi Government, this delimitation became final and unrevisable as and when each part of it was effected. The Persian Government, on the other hand, is of opinion that the Treaty of Erzerum of 1847, the Protocol of Constantinople of 1913, and consequently the delimitation effected by the Delimitation Commission of 1914, have no force, either in or in equity, to determine the frontier. I. The Treaty of Erzerum of 1847 consists of nine articles. According to Article 2, in the Province of Zohab, Persia and the Porte respectively cede the lowlands and the highlands (Article 2 , paragraph 1 ). Persia abandons all claim to the and province of Suleimani (Article 2 , paragraph 2 ), while “ the Ottoman Government formally recognises the unrestricted sovereignty of the Persian Government over the city and port of Muhammara, the island of Khizr,2 the anchorage, and the land on the eastern bank — that is to say, the left bank — of the Shatt-al-Arab, which are in the possession of tribes recognised as belonging to Persia. Further, Persian vessels shall have the right to navigate freely without let or hindrance on the Shatt-al-Arab from the mouth of the same to the point of contact of the frontiers of the two Parties ” (Article 2, paragraph 3). Negotiations, which were conducted under the pressing mediation of the two great Powers, had been lengthy and difficult, lasting four years. The two Contracting Parties were thus obliged to insert a provision to the effect “ that, when the texts of this Treaty have been exchanged, they will accept and sign the same, and that the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged within the space of two months, or earlier ” (Article 9). The asked for an interpretation, which the Ambassadors gave (Annex IV) in an explanatory note (April 14th/26th, 1847), being the more ready to do so in that the Porte made it an absolute condition of its acceptance. “. . . on the understanding ”, wrote the Ottoman Minister for Foreign Affairs in his reply to the Powers, “ that the Court of Persia will accept the assurances which have been given by the representatives of the two mediating Courts to the effect that it will raise no claim going counter to those assurances, and on the further understanding that, in the event of any such claim being raised, the Treaty will be deemed to be null and void ” (Annex V). Persia, whose consent the Powers assumed without troubling to notify her, instructed her Ambassador in France, who was on his way to Teheran, to proceed to Constantinople and exchange the ratifications of the treaty of nine articles. The Powers requested him to include the explanatory note in his ratification. To accept that note, which was added to the Convention of nine articles as a supplementary treaty, was to exceed his instructions and his powers. None the less, at the urgent request of the Porte, he took upon himself to give to the explanatory note, in the form of a ratification, an acceptance which required the signature of the Head of the State ; though at the same time he carefully made it clear that his powers did not extend so far, and that his declaration was a purely personal one (Annex VI). The Treaty, which was to be “ accepted, signed and ratified ” (Article 9), was thus ratified without having been accepted. Since the acceptance of the explanatory note was the essential condition of the establishment of the contract, which would otherwise be “ null and void ” according to the Ottoman declaration, that instrument, on which the Royal Government now seeks to base its case, is, as was stated in the Ottoman note, “ null and void ”.

1 It is to be noted that, when reference is made in this memorandum to Great Britain or Russia, such reference applies, not to the present Government of Great Britain or the present Government of Russia, hut to the British or Russian Government of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 1 Now the island of Abadan. II. Despite the efforts of the mediating Powers, the Treaty was followed only by intermittent attem pts at execution, not directed by the common will of the signatory States. From time to time a partial endeavour was made to delimit the frontier, but without result. Persia did not accept the declaration made ultra vires by Mirza Mahommed Aii on January 19th/31st, 1848. The Porte refused to recognise the existence of the Treaty unless it embodied the substantial concessions contained in the explanatory note. Neither of the Parties held himself bound, as the Powers observed with a growing sense that the difficulties were so great as to render success highly improbable. The absence of agreement as to the explanatory note is referred to in the diplomatic correspondence, 1 in addition to the natural and, even more, the psychological obstacles, as being the main source of all the difficulties. Witness the following passage : “ At the same time, it would be highly desirable that the mediating Courts should take the opportunity to clear up the species of discrepancy which is considered to exist between the terms of Article 2 of the Treaty of Erzerum and the explanations exchanged prior to the ratification of the Treaty between the Porte and the representatives of Great Britain and Russia at Constantinople. . . The insistence of each of the two Parties on his own interpretation is the main source of the disputes that are delaying the progress of joint work on the frontier.” That is an extract from the joint statement addressed by the British and Russian Commissioners to their Governments.2 When Lord Palmerston read it, he wrote to the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg : “ The boundary between and Persia can never be finally settled except by an arbitrary decision on the part of Great Britain and Russia” .3 Difficulties continued. From time to time an “ arbitrary delimitation ” was made, but on each occasion it was immediately repudiated. Lord Palmerston found himself obliged to threaten either Party that might violate the frontier with the provision of “ aid and support ” to the other Party .4 Thus the frontier, in establishing which neither State had secured the consent of the other, could not be fixed. Years passed, and the Powers became convinced of the rightness of the view expressed by the Commissioners of 1851 : “ We are absolutely certain that it is next to impossible to remove the obstacles which are obstructing the progress of demarcation, in the absence of more direct and decided intervention on the part of our respective Courts.” 5 Such intervention demanded the stimulus of personal interest. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Great Britain and Russia were engaged in dividing their spheres of influence in the . It was necessary for them to define the limits of their respective spheres, and that involved prevailing upon Persia and the Ottoman Empire to fix the boundary between them. They accordingly persuaded those States to come to a direct agreement upon a new procedure. By their " good offices ” they induced the Persian and Ottoman Governments, both of which were equally anxious to remove any possible future subject of controversy in regard to their common frontier, to instruct the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Ambassador at Teheran, respectively, to establish the bases of negotiation and the procedure to be followed in delimiting the frontier. Those representatives agreed (Protocol of Teheran of December 21st, 1911 : Annex V II) on the formation of a commission consisting of an equal number of delegates of either Party, who should be furnished with all relevant documents and evidence, and should be required to establish the boundary-line between the two countries ; after which a technical commission would be appointed for the sole purpose of applying on the spot the final delimitation on the lines laid down by the former commission. In its letter for the information of the Council with a view to the application of Article 1 1 , paragraph 2, of the Covenant, the Iraqi Government has not thought fit to mention this Protocol. It is nevertheless of capital importance. LTnlike the non-existent treaty of 1847, the Teheran Protocol of 1911 constitutes a formal and regular undertaking. It was the more readily concluded inasmuch as it relates to a procedure in two stages : first, the general tracing of a comprehensive line, and then the fixing of that line on the ground. The commissioners responsible for the first stage are enjoined to act in a spirit of sincere impartiality on the basis of the clauses of the “ so-called Erzerum Treaty concluded in 1847 ” or, to be quite accurate, as only the year of the Hegira is mentioned, in 1263. The agreement in nine articles dates from 1847 ; the explanatory note and its acceptance by the Porte also dates from 1847 ; the so-called ratification of Mirza Mahommed Ah Khan is dated 1848, Pera, Sefer 23rd, 1264. It follows that the treaty which, according to Article 3 of the Teheran Agreement, must serve as basis for the Joint Commission’s work, described in Article 3 as “ the so-called Erzerum Treaty concluded in 1263”, only relates to the nine articles, leaving out of account the explanatory note. In spite of the express mention of the year 1263, which definitely confirmed the Persian point of view, the Porte energetically maintained its opposition. This uncompromising attitude had its effect on the work of the Constantinople Commission ( 12th/25th-August 9th/22nd, 1912). But Russia, exercising pressure

1 Correspondence respecting the Demarcation of the Frontier between Turkey and Persia, presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty, 1865. 2 Loc. cit., page 12. 3 Loc. cit., page 13. 4 Loc. cit., page 13 : Viscount Palmerston to Sir G. H. Seymour, October 11th, 1851. 6 Loc. cit., page 12. on Persia, induced her to abandon her point of view in practice, while maintaining it in principle. At the penultimate meeting (August 2nd/15th, 1912), when the Porte was already preparing, in accordance with Article 4 of the Teheran Protocol, to resort to arbitration at The Hague “ in order that the whole question (of the frontier) should be finally settled ”, the Persian delegation, showing the most conciliatory spirit, made the following declaration : “ An examination of the documents despatched from Teheran confirms the point of view consistently upheld by the Persian representative — namely, that Mirza Mahommed Khan, Envoy of His Imperial Majesty the , did not possess full powers for the signature of additional stipulations which were not embodied in the authentic text of the Treaty as drafted by the commissioners of the two mediating Courts. While maintaining this observation of principle, the Persian delegation, actuated by a sincere desire to arrive at a settlement of the frontier question, and in view of the acts of mediation of Great Britain and Russia, exercised for the past seventy years, of the said Poivers dated April 14th/26th, 1847 and recognises the explanations contained therein as forming an integral part of the Treaty of Erzerum.” “ Declares its acceptance of the collective note.” On this date, August 2nd/15th, 1912, this acceptance was given for the first time • and after this concession Eussia no longer permitted any evasions by the Porte. On August 9th/22nd, 1912, the Imperial Russian Embassy at Constantinople sent a note to the Sublime Porte stating that “ the Imperial Government considers that too much emphasis cannot be laid on the necessity of putting into effect without delay the explicit stipulations of the Treaty of Erzerum, which are tantamount to the restoration of the status quo of 1848”. On the same day the Joint Commission concluded its proceedings. Independently of the stipulations of the bilateral agreement of Teheran, four-Power negotiations began which singularly overstepped the stipulations of the Protocol of December 21st, 1911. It was no longer the Hague Court of Arbitration which, “ in a spirit of sincere impartiality ”, was to deal with the difficulties ; it was direct negotiations by the mediating Powers, either among themselves or with both or even one of the other twro nations, which were to settle the differences arbitrarily. Although, under the Protocol of 1911, negotiations were to take place at Constantinople, we thus find that, on July 21st, 1913, a “ Declaration ” was signed in London by Sir Edward Grey and His Highness Ibrahim Hakky concerning the southern frontier-line between Persia and Turkey.1 This latter fact shows that the mediating Powers, being anxious each to delimit its own sphere of influence to its own advantage, tended increasingly to act independently of the mediation procedure. Being bound, like their respective clients, Persia and the Ottoman Empire, by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, Great Britain and Eussia, after rejecting the arbitral settlement provided for in the Teheran Agreement, replaced it by a mediation procedure which by no means deserves such a name, for it answered neither to the spirit nor to the rules of The Hague. Going beyond the provisions of the Erzerum Treaty of 1847 and even of the Erzerum Treaty of 1848, the agreement entitled Protocol of Delimitation, which was signed on November 4th/17th, 1913, at Constantinople by the representatives, not only of Persia and the Porte, but of Great Britain and Eussia, reveals that, after having been direct parties to the negotiations, the two great Powers remain direct parties to the conclusion, and in this way arrange for a detailed delimitation without other purpose than to satisfy Eussia’s interests to the north even at the expense of Turkey, and Great Britain’s interests to the south even at the expense of Persia. It would therefore be incorrect to represent the Protocol of November 4tli/17th, 1913, in spite of its modest name of Delimitation ”, as a simple technical application of an alleged agreement, the unaccepted text of Erzerum. In actual fact, the Protocol of November 4th/17th, J913, with which the proceedings of the Constantinople Joint Commission terminated, gave birth, on the pretext of applying the valueless text of Erzerum, to a veritable political agreement of a Avider scope and showing a more marked interventionist tendency, thus covering a greater territorial area. Between the very vague line of 1848 and the very definite one of 1913 there is a greater difference than that between the principle and its application. Substantial advantages are granted which do not appear in 1847 or even in 1848. In particular, Persia is for the first time stopped on the Shatt-al-Arab by the extraordinary and anachronistic fixing of the frontier on the bank of that river. Here the 1913 text manifestly goes beyond that of 1847. When Article 2 of the Treaty of Erzerum says that “ the city and port, the island of Khizr (Abadan) and the land on the eastern bank — that is to say, the left bank — of the Shatt-al-Arab, which are in the possession of tribes recognised as belonging to Persia, shall remain in the unrestricted sovereignty of the Persian Government ”, it certainly does not signify acceptance of that bank as the boundary, this boundary placing in 1913 the whole of the river under the sovereignty of the riparian of the right bank. While the Treaty is silent on this point, international law undoubtedly places the boundary in the middle of the river, or rather of the channel. Besides the text which assigns the ports and inland waterways of the eastern bank to Persia “ in unrestricted sovereignty ” like the land on that bank, the text which gives the right to navigate freely without let or hindrance ” assumes that each of the riparian States will have an equal right of sovereignty as far as the middle of the river.

1 See Annex III. The 1913 text also fixes, in certain sections of the land frontier, a line which is in no way in keeping with the natural and geographical character of the territory. Without here going into details which would unduly complicate the present statement, it will be sufficient to say that the new line is very different from that of the “ status quo of 1848 " In any case, both on the river and on land, the 1913 line effects a considerable shifting of the territorial position. According to the Constitutional of Persia, however (Articles 22 and 24 of the Constitution of August 5th, 1906, and Article 3 of the Supplement to the Constitutional Laws of October 7th, 1907 : Annex VIII), no change or rectification of the boundaries of the State can take place without the legislative approval of the Mejliss, and, indeed, the frontiers of the State can only be modified in virtue of a law, following the example of the Belgian and French Constitutions. But the Constantinople Protocol was not approved by the Mejliss ; hence the condition essential for its validity, not only under municipal law, but, on the basis of municipal law, under international law, is lacking. The same condition was required at that date by the Ottoman Empire (Annex IX). It was not fulfilled, which suggests that, whatever the Iraqi Government say, the Ottoman Government did not regard the frontier-line fixed by the 1913 Protocol, and, on the basis of that Protocol, by the Delimitation Commission of 1914, as valid and final.

III.

In virtue of the 1913 Protocol, and hence on an entirely invalid basis, a Commission consisting of representatives of Persia, the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain and Russia proceeded to a delimitation of the frontier on the ground. It began its work in the south at the mouth of the Shatt-al-Arab in the , and thence proceeded northwards. In the southern and central portion of the frontier, the delimitation was effected to the advantage of the Ottoman Empire, and its representatives of course made no objection. In the northern part, the Ottoman Commissioners refused to take part in the delimitation of the frontier in a certain area ; they even refused to evacuate and hand over to Persia numerous localities which, according to the 1914 line, had to be detached from the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, during the Commission’s work and immediately afterwards, Ottoman troops occupied or even reoccupied certain areas which had been assigned to Persia by the 1913 Protocol (Annex X). Thus the Ottoman Empire in practice treated as non-existent the Protocol of 1913 and the 1914 line, which, indeed, were legally null and void. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the 1913 Protocol’s claim (Articles 4 and 5) to render compulsory and final that part of the frontier regarding wrhich a sovereign award had been given by the British and Russian Commissioners, it is one of the highest principles of equity and logic, which the Parties cannot disregard in virtue of any valid convention (and still less in virtue of an invalid one), that the tracing of a frontier-line forms a single and essentially indivisible operation. If the Protocol which fixes the frontier is disregarded, owing to the failure of one of the Contracting Parties to observe it, in respect of a certain part of the line, it must also be disregarded in respect of other parts. Hence it must be concluded that the 1913 Protocol and the 1914 delimitation relied on by the Iraqi Government must be deliberately rejected. They must be rejected, (1 ) because they take as starting-point a treaty which was itself non-existent at the time when the Teheran Agreement of 1911 referred to it ; (2) because, in concluding the 1913 Protocol, which already gravely departs from the provisions and stipulations of the Teheran Agreement of 1911 providing for arbitration in case of disagreement, all the rules of the mediation procedure, the main features of which had just been fixed at The Hague in agreements signed by all the Parties, were openly disregarded ; (3) because, on the pretext of a treaty between Persia and the Ottoman Empire, an agreement was in reality concluded between Great Britain and Russia, accompanied on the Shatt-al-Arab by a direct agreement concluded in London between Great Britain and the Sublime Porte and by the improper conclusion of a bilateral understanding in the British capital in the middle of negotiations which were to take place at Constantinople between all the Parties ; (4) because, lastly, one of the Parties, the Ottoman Empire, immediately failed to carry out, in a great many respects, the Act of 1913 fixing the frontier — a failure which, even if partial, involved the total lapse of the Act owing to its indivisible character. To all the causes of nullity deduced from general contract law must lastly be added the decisive reason that the case in question concerned a public law contract subordinated by constitutional law, here forming part of international law, to conditions of internal and international validity which were not fulfilled either by Persia or by the Ottoman Empire.

IV.

The same argument, which leads the Imperial Government to regard as null and void the delimitation of the frontier in 1914, was adopted by the new Turkish . The latter declared officially that the “ Protocol of 1913 cannot be regarded as a valid political instrument, since it has not been given the form indispensable for its validity — that is to say, it was neither approved by the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies nor ratified by the , the Chief of the Executive, at the time. This Protocol has accordingly remained null and — 6 without effect. ” In view of this conclusion, Persia and Turkey consequently entered into negotiations with the object of determining their frontier. The latter did not become definitive until the Convention of 1932 was approved by the respective Legislatures of the two Contracting States (Annex XI). A like procedure might have settled the question in regard to Iraq when, in 1922, that State was formed of a part, adjacent to Persia, of the former Ottoman Empire. Repeatedly both at the time of Iraq’s recognition as a State and before, at the time of and after her admission to the League of Nations, the Imperial Government reminded Iraq that it did not recognise the validity of the on which the Royal Government thought it could relv for the alignment of the frontier. In expressing the friendly sentiments with which he welcomed the entry of Iraq into the League of Nations. His Highness Foroughi, Minister for Foreign Affairs, first delegate of Persia to the Assembly, added to his congratulations this precise remark : “ Persia has business to transact, agreements and conventions to conclude and frontier questions to settle with Iraq ”. It may be noted in particular that Iraq’s claim to ownership in and sovereignty over the whole of the Shatt-al-Arab is not only devoid of any conventional foundation, but is even in absolute contradiction with them odern principles recalled, and so far as necessary affirmed, under the auspices of the League of Nations, at Barcelona in 1921, even before the birth of Iraq : principles in virtue of which, when a river flows between two countries, it is the median line or rather the thalweg that shall, in order the better to ensure its freedom, be taken by them as the frontier. Without investigating whether in modern law a contrary convention is permitted, as was formerly taught, it is sufficient to note that, in the opinion of all, when a treaty is silent on the subject, the boundary on the bank, the “ dynamic limit ”, which is unequal and a matter of ambition and conquest., must yield before the median boundary, the “ static limit ” in conformity with the river’s function of equalisation, unification and pacification. It is not reasonable that a State should have the ownership over a long bank of a river and should, at the same time, be deprived of sovereignty over that river. That would be contrary to the most elementary care for the security of the riparian State. It is inadmissible that, by a strange contradiction, warships of the riparian State, authorised to navigate a river “ freely without let or hindrance ”, should be obliged, on the side of their national bank, to take orders, even orders confined to navigation, from the delegate on the other bank of a foreign sovereign. When considerations of this kind were, during the ’s mandate, brought to the knowledge of the mandatory Power which was responsible for the international representation of the mandated country, the British Minister at Teheran duly expressed himself in agreement with the desire of Persia to settle her situation on the Shatt-al-Arab, in order that there might be no doubt on that subject. He wrote as follows on March 11th, 1929 : “ I have now received instructions to give Your Highness a categorical assurance that, if your Government is now prepared to recognise Iraq, my Government, having learnt in detail from the Persian Government of the practical difficulties that arise from the present state of affairs in the Shatt-al-Arab and the guarantees that it desires, will lend its good offices with the Iraqi Government in order to assist Persia in obtaining her reasonable demands.” He even showed himself prepared to conclude a convention relating to the Shatt-al-Arab. “ Finally ”, he states in conclusion, “ in order to find a means of meeting the legitimate complaints of Persia, my Government is inclined towards the idea of a tripartite treaty between Persia, Iraq and the United Kingdom. This treaty might provide for the setting up of a special administrative council, on which Persia would be represented, in order to supervise shipping in the river or to take other measures acceptable to the Parties concerned. But the details would have to be discussed later. ” No further action was taken on the conversations, as the draft submitted by the British Minister did not contain any reference expressly recognising Persia’s sovereignty over the half of the river on the side of the Persian bank.

V. From the foregoing statement, it would seem that the non-validity of the documents on which the Royal Government bases its claims is sufficiently manifest to constitute an adequate reply to the allegations put forward in paragraphs 1 and 3 of its letter and to have proved completely that the charges brought against the agents of the Imperial Government as regards the alleged violation of the boundary-line are entirely without foundation. The Iraqi Government complains, in paragraph 4 of its letter, that it has been unable to obtain any result by means of direct negotiation : it adds that the numerous conciliatory proposals which it has made, whether for the investigation by joint commissions of particular problems affected by the precise alignment of the boundary, or for the general examination of all causes of inconvenience to either side arising from that alignment, with a view to eliminating the inconveniences by appropriate administrative arrangements have been consistently rejected or ignored. The Imperial Government thus feels compelled to point out that these various proposals could not be taken into consideration : for, based as they were without exception on the 1914 line, they were inacceptable — a fact that has been sufficiently demonstrated by the foregoing considerations. As is shown by the reply addressed by the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Iraqi Chargé d’Affaires at Teheran on December 17th, 1934 (Annex XII), the Imperial Government has never failed to give proof of its friendly intentions towards the Royal Government ; actuated by this spirit, it has always expressed the desire that the delimitation of its frontiers may be carried out in accordance with the principles of justice and equity, in conformity with the rules of international law, in order effectively to ensure the friendly relations that are necessary for the sincere collaboration of two neighbouring States, both Members of the League of Nations. The Imperial Government has, moreover, carried on long negotiations on these bases with the authorities of the Royal Government. The reason that it has been unable to achieve any result is that the Iraqi authorities have always insisted on maintaining their point of view as to the validity of Iraq’s titles — titles based on obsolete documents which are out of date, relating to a period when the Persian and Ottoman were under the aggressive influence of foreign Powers and, moreover, contrary to the requirements of the present time ; titles devoid of all kind of legal force and entirely without equitable foundation. The Royal Government nevertheless persisted in maintaining its point of view, without appearing to realise that great changes have occurred in the world and more particularly that two of the Powers which had participated in the framing of those documents — Tsarist Russia and the Ottoman Empire — have ceased to exist, and, lastly, that the said documents have been rejected, not only by the Persian Government, but also by the Turkish Republic. It is regrettable that the Iraqi Government, instead of doing its utmost to settle the question directly with the Persian Government, in accordance with the principles of justice and equity, in application of the rules of international law and in conformity with the principles and spirit of the League of Nations, should have felt it incumbent upon it to apply to the Council and to present its claims in the form of a complaint. Although the Imperial Government is sincerely desirous of settling this question by direct negotiation with the Royal Government, it cannot refuse to agree to its being submitted for consideration to the Council, whose spirit of impartiality and justice is an adequate guarantee that the arguments here submitted will be duly examined. LIST OF ANNEXES.

Page

I. Letters to the Iraqi Government concerning the Encroachments of Iraqi Agents and Tribes on Persian T e rrito ry ...... 9

II. Treaty of Erzerum of 1847...... 11

III. Protocol of Constantinople of 1 9 1 3 ...... 13

IV. Explanatory Note sent on April 26th, 1847, to the Ottoman Government by the British and Russian Ambassadors at C o n s ta n tin o p le ...... 17

V. Reply from the Sublime P o r t e ...... 19

VI. Letter from Mirza Mohamed Ali Khan of January 14th/31st, 1848 ...... 19

VII. Protocol of Teheran of December 21st, 1911 ...... 20

VIII. Articles XXII and XXIV of the Persian Constitution of August 5th, 1906, and Article III of the Supplement to the Constitutional Laws of October 7th, 1907 20

IX . Article 7 of the O ttom an C o n s titu tio n ...... 20

X. Extracts from the Minutes of the Delimitation Commission of 1914...... 20

X I. Agreement of 1932 between Persia and T urkey...... 23

XII. Letter from the Iraqi Chargé d’Affaires and Reply from the Persian Minister for Foreign A ffairs...... 26 Annex I.

It is not possible for the Persian Government to reproduce here of the voluminous correspondence exchanged on this matter with the Iraqi Government. Out of the large number of letters and notes which the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Persian Minister at have addressed to the Iraqi Minister at Teheran and to the Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs, we confine ourselves for the moment to quoting in extenso the few notes given below, while reserving our right to produce others later.

[Translation of Note, dated 9/V/1311 (July 31st, 1932), No. 16187, from the Persian Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the Eoyal Iraqi Legation.]

N ote. With reference to its previous notes concerning repeated acts of aggression by Iraqi brigands on Persian territory, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has the honour to communicate the following information to the Eoyal Iraqi Legation : On tir 29th of this year, a certain number of brigands entered Persia by boat from Hour and went towards Sabeleh in Persian territory. Their first intention was to seize the money collected by the tax collector, but, as the gendarmes of the Finance Department opened fire on them and thus prevented them from doing so, the brigands went to the residence of , the mayor of the place, and stole a number of different objects. The inhabitants pursued the brigands as far as the river bank and seized one of their boats. The thieves nevertheless managed to get back to Hour after wounding three inhabitants of Sabeleh and killing one of them. An exhaustive enquiry has proved that these brigands are subjects of the Eoyal Government, belonging to the Abu-Mahomed tribe, that they inhabit the northern part of Farneh and have made Hour a centre — upon which they can also retire — for their attacks on Persian territory. In bringing the above-mentioned facts to the knowledge of the Royal Iraqi Legation, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs accordingly requests it to be good enough to make urgent and effective representations with a view to the arrest and punishment of the culprits, the payment of the compensation due to the victims and the restitution of the stolen objects. It would also be glad to be kept informed of the result of these representations.

[Translation of Note of 13/V/1311 (August 4th, 1932), No. 16878, from the Persian Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the Eoyal Iraqi Legation.] N ote. In continuation of its Note No. 11402 concerning repeated acts of aggression by armed brigands on Persian territory, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Eoyal Iraqi Legation that, according to a report which has reached the competent authorities, the brigands in question, on the night of Khordad 23rd, at midnight, again attacked the place situated at 2 farsakhs’ distance from Khafajieh, killing two persons, wounding six others and carrying off fifty camels. The gendarmerie forces pursued the brigands and got back the stolen camels, but the brigands managed to escape into Iraqi territory. The enquiry has proved that the above-mentioned brigands belonged to the Hamidan tribe and were led by Vamek, a Persian rebel who had taken refuge in Iraq. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs therefore desires once again to draw the Eoyal Legation’s attention to the importance of the problem involved in attacks by Iraqi and Persian armed brigands and the murders and plunderings carried out on Persian territory, and requests it to be good enough to make urgent representations with a view to the arrest of the Persian subject Vamek and his surrender to the Persian frontier authorities, the punishment of his Iraqi accomplices and the payment of the compensation due to the heirs of the victims. The Ministry also requests the Legation to be good enough to inform it at the earliest possible moment of the result of such representations.

* * *

[Translation of Note No. 5162 from the Persian Minister at Baghdad to the Prime Minister of Iraq.] Bahman 17th, 1311 — February 6 th, 1933. Very urgent. In continuation of my long conversation of yesterday with Your Excellency and in reply to letter No. 839 of Shabat 5th, 1933, I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that the result of the Iraqi Government’s negligence in regard to frontier questions — 10 —

(particularly in the Sulaimaniyeh region) is now becoming apparent. The representations which I have made on several occasions, drawing the Eoyal Government’s attention to this situation and to the necessity for urgent action with a view to the expulsion of the partisans of Djafar Sultan and the notables of Lohun, and my request that measures should be taken to the activities of these brigands and to prevent the sale of arms and ammunition to the inhabitants of the Persian frontier regions, have been unavailing, the Iraqi authorities having made no serious efforts to give us satisfaction. The telegraphic despatches which I have received from my Government report incursions into Persian territory by bands of Iraqis from Hani-Garmaleh and south of Nosud, carrying with them a large quantity of arms. These malefactors distribute money and arms to the inhabitants, thus encouraging them to rebel and to join with the bandits in committing crimes. The Imperial Government cannot believe that the Iraqi authorities are ignorant of the banding together of such a large number of their compatriots, their association with fugitive Persian bandits, their accumulation of arms and money, and their preparations for subversive activities on such a large scale. It deeply regrets to note that the Eoyal Government has taken no notice of the legitimate requests made by the Persian Legation at Baghdad, asking that greater attention be paid to frontier questions — viz., despatch of regular troops, the cessation of foreign intrigues and agitation, arrest of fomenters of disturbances and their surrender to the Persian Government or banishment to places remote from the frontier. As a result of this off-handedness, a quite intolerable situation has been created, which is prejudicial to the friendly relations existing between the two neighbouring countries. On behalf of my Government, 1 wish to enter an emphatic protest against these incidents. In accordance with the formal assurance given to me yesterday by Your Excellency that you would take a personal interest in the settlement of these questions, and in view of your promise to send troops and to put other measures in hand, I would request you, for the moment, to give urgent instructions as follows :

(1 ) A high and trustworthy official to be sent to the province of Sulaimaniyeh to carry out an impartial and careful enquiry into the conduct and actions of the local police. All those who have been guilty of negligence in the performance of their duties or have assisted and supported the malefactors should at once be recalled and punished.

(2) Within the shortest possible time, a military force of sufficient strength and consisting of men who do not come from the place in question (this to be additional to the troops who, you have informed me in writing, will be despatched shortly), to be sent to the spot, with definite instructions to cut off without delay the relations between the bandits at present on Persian territory and those residing on this (i.e., the Iraqi) side of the frontier who supply them with arms and money. All the Iraqi inhabitants guilty of creating these disturbances and all those guilty of incitement to revolt to be arrested, removed from the frontier zone and duly punished. The Iraqi forces to be ordered further to arrest without hesitation and hand over to the Persian military authorities fugitive brigands attempting to cross the frontier.

(3) The few partisans of Djafar Sultan and the notables of Lohun, who are at present at Sulaimaniyeh and whose names and places of residence will be communicated to the Iraqi authorities by the Persian Vice-Consul in that city, to be expelled at once from the province and sent to a place at a great distance from the frontier.

As I am not yet in possession of full particulars of the incident, I reserve the right later to submit the Imperial Government’s requests to the Iraqi Government. In conclusion, 1 have the honour to inform Your Excellency that, as requested in Note No. 839, I have asked my Government to be good enough to give instructions to the Persian military commander to get into touch with his Iraqi colleague with a view to direct collaboration for the suppression of the brigands on the frontier. I shall be glad to be informed of the result of the urgent measures taken by the Iraqi Government.

[Translation of Letter No. 1892, dated Tirmah 20th, 1312 (July 11th, 1933), from the Persian Minister at Baghdad to the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs ad interim of Iraq.]

In continuation of previous correspondence relating to the fact that brigands from Lohun who have taken refuge in Iraqi territory have established themselves in the of the Persian frontier, where, in complicity with the armed brigands of Iraq, they cross the frontier and commit massacres and depredations in Persian territory, I have the honour to make to Your Highness the following communication : Although the Eoyal Iraqi Government has on several occasions been invited, both verbally and in writing, to take energetic action to prevent the establishment of the said — 11 —

brigands in the frontier regions, and to prevent any complicity, material or moral, between fjjem and the armed brigands of Iraq, so as to preclude any renewal of their incursions into Persian territory or of the massacres and depredations which they commit in the villages of the district of Ovraman, it is nevertheless a regrettable fact that the Royal Iraqi Government has not taken any steps to comply with the legitimate demands of the Imperial Persian Government, and has, indeed, taken up an incredibly cool attitude towards those demands, thereby enabling the brigands in question to repeat their offences. According to information supplied by the competent authorities, it is proved that : (1 ) Three soldiers from the frontier post, having proceeded, in order to draw water, to a well situate in Persian territory in the neighbourhood of the Iraqi frontier, were suddenly fired upon by brigands armed with rifles and concealed in gardens in Iraqi territory. As a result of the attack, a soldier named Reza Khan was killed, the brigands taking flight when relief arrived on the spot. Two Iraqi police agents, named Abdurrahman and Firuz, who arrived on the scene to enquire into the matter, themselves confirmed the existence in the region of several bands of brigands. (2) Ahmed Khan Zavieh, the newly appointed commander of the military forces in , when on his way from Baneh to Novsud, was suddenly attacked by the said brigands, who fired on him from an ambuscade in his rear and killed him. In bringing the above facts to your knowledge, I am instructed : (1) To convey to you my Government’s vigorous protests on the subject of the above- mentioned events, and to press for the adoption of urgent measures for the arrest of the brigands in question ; to ask for such as are of Persian nationality to be handed over to the police of the Imperial Government ; to claim reparation for the damage done and the provision of pensions for the heirs of the victims, and, finally, to ask that my Government be informed of what has been done. (2) To draw your attention to my Government’s view that these events, taken as a whole, show clearly that, through the complaisance and laxit y of the competent agents of the Eoyal Iraqi Government, these brigands have developed such a degree of boldness and effrontery as to make the lives and property of the Persian inhabitants of the frontier districts in the future the playthings and trophies of these murderous bandits. Their audacity has reached a point at which they do not hesitate to assassinate high officers and soldiers, and, after committing every kind of crime, to take refuge in Iraqi territory. Unquestionably, if these brigand bands were not in Iraqi territory, the agents of my Government would not fail to remedy this state of affairs. As, however, they are in Iraqi territory, the Iraqi Government must be aware that responsibility in the matter rests with itself ; and the Persian Government is accordingly entitled, in the interest of neighbourly relations, to expect the Royal Iraqi Government to collaborate with the Imperial Persian Government and to put an end to the existing state of affairs. In any case, my Government is no longer prepared to tolerate the repetition of these regrettable incidents, and cannot in the future accept the far from plausible pretexts of the agents of the Iraqi Government and thus become a mere witness of such occurrences. Accordingly, for the last time, in order to end the matter once and for all, I beg you to take such steps as you consider desirable and necessary to remedy the existing state of affairs and root out the brigands, and to communicate to me, so as to enable me to convey the information to the competent authorities of my Government, the result of such final decisions as the Iraqi Government may take to terminate these regrettable occurrences ; otherwise, the Imperial Persian Government will be compelled to take energetic action in the matter and even to refer it to the League of Nations. In that case, the entire responsibility will rest with the Royal Iraqi Government, and it '«ill no longer be entitled to complain of the procedure so chosen.

Annex II.

T r e a t y of E r z e r u m of May 31st, 1847.

[Translation of Mr. Redhouse and M. MoukMne.]

Article 1.

The two Mussulman Powers waive the totality of their existing pecuniary claims on one another, provided always that nothing in this arrangement shall affect the provisions made for the settlement of the claims to which Article 4 relates. — 12 —

Article 2.

The Persian Government undertakes to cede to the Ottoman Government all the lowlands — that is to say, the land in the western part of the province of Zohab ; and the Ottoman Government undertakes to cede to the Persian Government the eastern — that is to say, all the mountainous — part of the said province, including the Kirind Valley. The Persian Government abandons all claim to the city and province of Suleimani and formally undertakes not to interfere with or infringe the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Government over the said province. The Ottoman Government formally recognises the unrestricted sovereignty of the Persian Government over the city and port of Muhammara, the island of Khizr, the anchorage, and the land on the eastern bank — that is to say, the left bank — of the Shatt-al-Arab, which are in the possession of tribes recognised as belonging to Persia. Further, Persian vessels shall have the right to navigate freely without let or hindrance on the Shatt-al-Arab from the mouth of the same to the point of contact of the frontiers of the two Parties.

Article 3.

The two Contracting Parties, hating by the present Treaty waived their other territorial claims, undertake forthwith to appoint commissioners and engineers as their respective representatives for the purpose of determining the frontiers between the two States in conformity with the preceding article.

Article 4.

Both Parties are agreed as to the appointment forthwith, by both Parties, of commissioners for the purpose of adjudicating and making a fair settlement in all cases of damage suffered by either Party since the acceptance of the friendly proposals drawn up and communicated by the two Mediating Great Powers in the month of Jemaziyyu-’l- evvel, 1261, together with all questions of pasturage dues since the year in which the arrears in the payment of the latter began.

Article 5. The Ottoman Government undertakes that the fugitive Persian shall reside at Brussa, and shall not be permitted to leave that place or maintain secret relations with Persia. The two High Contracting Powers further undertake that all the other refugees shall be handed over in conformity with the earlier Treaty of Erzerum.

Article 6. Persian merchants shall pay the Customs dues on their goods, in kind or in cash, according to the current present value of such goods, in the manner specified in the article relating to trade in the Treaty of Erzerum concluded in 1238.1 No additional charge whatsoever shall be levied over and above the amounts fixed in the said Treaty.

Article 7. The Ottoman Government undertakes to accord the requisite privileges to enable Persian pilgrims, in accordance with the former treaties, to visit the Holy Places in the Ottoman in complete safety and without vexatious treatment of any kind. Further, the Ottoman Government, being desirous of strengthening and consolidating the bonds of friendship and concord which should subsist between the two Mussulman Powers and between their respective subjects, undertakes to adopt such measures as may be most appropriate to ensure the participation, not only of Persian pilgrims, but of all other Persian subjects, in all the said privileges in the Ottoman dominions, in such manner as to protect them from any sort of injustice, molestation, or incivility, whether in respect of their commercial activities or in any other respect. Furthermore, the Ottoman Government undertakes to recognise Consuls to be appointed by the Persian Government in places in the Ottoman dominions where their presence may be required on account of commercial interests, or for the protection of Persian merchants and other Persian subjects, save only in the Revered and the Resplendent, and to respect in the case of the said Consuls all the privileges due in virtue of their official character and accorded to Consuls of other friendly Powers. The Persian Government, for its part, undertakes to accord reciprocity of treatment in every respect to Consuls to be appointed by the Ottoman Government in places in Persia in which the latter may consider the appointment of Consuls to be necessary, as also to Ottoman merchants and other Ottoman subjects visiting Persia.

1 A.H. 1238 = a .d . 1823. — 13 —

Article 8. The two High Contracting Musulman Powers undertake to adopt and enforce the measures necessary to prevent and punish theft and on the part of the tribes and peoples settled on the frontier, to which end they will quarter troops in suitable localities. They further undertake to do their duty in respect of all forms of aggressive acts, such as pillage, robbery, or murder, which may occur in their respective territories. Contested tribes the over which is not known shall be left free by the two High Contracting Powers to choose once for all and specify the localities which they will henceforward always inhabit. Tribes the suzerainty over which is known shall be compelled to come within the territory of the State to which they belong.

Article 9.

All points or articles of previous treaties, and especially of the Treaty concluded at Erzerum in 1238,1 which are not specifically amended or annulled by the present Treaty, are hereby reaffirmed in respect of any and all of their provisions, as if they were reproduced in their entirety in the present Treaty. The two High Contracting Powers agree that, when the texts of this Treaty have been exchanged, they will accept and sign the same, and that the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged within the space of two months, or earlier.

Annex III.

[Translation.]

P rotocol s ig n e d at Constantinople o n N o v e m b e r 4 th (17 t h ), 1913.

The undersigned : His Excellency Sir Louis Mallet, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty to His Majesty the Sultan ; His Excellency Mirza Mahmud Khan Kajar ‘Ahd-i-Shàmus Saltaneh, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of His Majesty the Shah of Persia to His Majesty the Sultan ; His Excellency M. Michel de Giers, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of His Majesty the of Eussia to His Majesty the Sultan ; His Highness , and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Ottoman Empire ; have met for the purpose of recording in the present Protocol the Agreement concluded between their respective Governments with regard to the Turco-Persian boundary. They began by recapitulating the progress, up to date, of the negotiations recently instituted among them. The Joint Commission provided for in Article 1 of the Protocol signed at Teheran between the Imperial Ottoman Embassy and the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs with a view to determining the bases for the negotiations relating to the delimitation of the Turco-Persian boundary held eighteen meetings, the first on March 12th (25th) and the last on August 9th (22nd), 1912. On August 9th (22nd), 1912, the Imperial Russian Embassy at Constantinople addressed to the Sublime Porte, under No. 264, a note stating that “ the Imperial Government considers that too much emphasis cannot be laid on the necessity of putting into effect without delay the explicit stipulations of the Treaty of Erzerum, which are tantamount to the restoration of the status quo of 1848 ”. The Imperial Embassy at the same time forwarded to the Imperial Ottoman Government a memorandum showing in detail the frontier-line in conformity with the stipulations of the treaties in force. The Imperial Ottoman Government replied to this communication by a note dated March 18th (31st), 1913, No. 30469/47. It stated that “ the Sublime Porte, being anxious to comply with the desire expressed by the Imperial Russian Government by eliminating any cause of difference in its cordial relations with the latter, and wishing, further, to demonstrate to the Persian Government its entire good faith in regard to the dispute existing on the subject between the two countries, has decided to accept the line mentioned in the aforesaid note and memorandum of the Ambassador of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia for the delimitation of the northern part of the Turco-Persian frontier from Bulak to Bane — that is to say, down to the 36th parallel of latitude Nevertheless, the Imperial Ottoman Government suggested a number of modifications in the line proposed in the memorandum annexed to the note of the Imperial Russian Embassy dated August 9th (22nd), 1912, No. 264. The Imperial Ottoman Government also appended to its note “an explanatory note on the situation of the Zohab boundaries and the arrangement that it would be able to accept in order to reach a final and equitable understanding with the Persian Government on that part of the frontier

1 a .h . 1238 = a . D. 1823. 14 —

The Imperial Eussian Embassy replied by a note dated March 28th (April 10th) 1913, No. 78. It noted the statement “ by which the Imperial Ottoman Government recognises as a principle for the delimitation of the Ararat-Bane section the exact sense of Article 3 of the Treaty of 1848, known as the Treaty of Erzerum, as set forth in the note of August 9th (22nd), 1912, No. 264 As regards the modifications proposed by the Sublime Porte, the Imperial Embassy stated (with a reservation on the question of Egri-chai) that it could not sufficiently emphasise the necessity of making no change in the line established in its note of August 9th (22nd), 1912. As regards the question of Zohab, the Imperial Eussian Embassy, while reserving the right to submit its detailed observations concerning that frontier, expressed “ its opinion on the whole of the Ottoman draft, which does not seem to it to guarantee sufficiently, for the future, the maintenance of order and peace on the frontiers ”. On April 20th (May 3rd), 1913, the Eussian and British Embassies addressed an identic note to His Highness Prince Saïd Halim Pasha, accompanied by a memorandum summarising their point of view regarding the delimitation of Zohab and the regions situate south of that district. This exchange of notes was followed by conversations between Their Excellencies M. de Giers and Sir Gerard Lowther, of the one part, and His Late Highness Mahmud Shefket Pasha, of the other part. The result of these conversations was recorded in an aide-mémoire presented by His Excellency the Eussian Ambassador to His Highness the Grand Vizier on June 6 th, 1913, and in the note from the Sublime Porte addressed on June 26th (July 9th), 1913, No. 34553/95, to the Eussian Embassy, and on July 12th, 1913, to the British Embassy. On July 29th, 1913, a “ declaration ” was signed in London by Sir Edward Grey and his Highness Ibrahim Hakky Pasha concerning the demarcation of the southern boundary between Persia and Turkey. The Imperial Eussian Embassy then proceeded to recapitulate the principles of delimitation established in the correspondence concerning the Turco-Persian boundary. It addressed to the Sublime Porte a note dated August 5th (18th), 1913, No. 166. An identic note was addressed to the Sublime Porte by the British Embassy on the same date. The Sublime Porte replied to these communications by identic notes dated 23rd, 1913, No. 37063/113. As a result of the subsequent negotiations, the four plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Persia, Eussia, and Turkey, agreed on the following provisions :

I. It is agreed that the boundary between Persia and Turkey shall be defined as follows : The boundary in the north shall start from boundary-mark No. XXXVII on the Turco-Eussian frontier, situate close to Serdar Bulak, on the crest between Little and Great Ararat. It shall then drop southwards by way of the ridges, leaving on the Persian side the valley of Dambat, Sarnvtch, and the water system of Yarym-Kaya, which rises to the south of Mount Ayubeg. The boundary shall then leave Bulak-bashi, in Persia, and shall continue to follow the highest ridge, the southern extremity of which is situate at about 44° 22' longitude and 39° 28' latitude. Then, skirting the west side of the marsh which extends to the west of Yarym-Kaya, the boundary shall cross the Sary-Su stream, pass between the villages of Girde-baran (Turkish) and Bazyrgan (Persian), and, ascending to the ridge to the west of Bazyrgan, follow the watershed formed by the Saranli, Zenduli, Gir-Kelime, Kanly-baba, Geduki-Khasineh, and Deveji ridges. After Deveji, the line shall cross the valley of Egri-chai at the place to be designated by the Delimitation Commission in conformity with the status quo, leaving the villages of Nado and Nifto in Persia. The ownership of the village of Kyzyl-Kaya (Bellasor) shall be established after an examination of the geographical situation of the village, the western side of the watershed in that region being allocated to Turkey, and the eastern side to Persia. Should the final boundary line leave outside Ottoman territory a section of the road which passes close to Kyzyl-Kaya and connects the district of Bayazid with the province of Van, it is understood that the Persian Government shall give free passage over this section of the road to the Imperial Ottoman Posts and to travellers and goods, other than military troops and convoys. The frontier shall then ascend to the ridges forming the watershed : Kyzyl-Ziaret, Sarychimene, Dumanlu, Kara-burga, the hill between the reservoirs of Ayry-chai (Persian) and of Jelli-gôl (Turkish), Avdal-dashi, Eeshkan, the hill between Akhurek and Tavra Bevra-begzadan, Gevri-Mahine, Khydyr-baba, Avristan. As regards Kotur, the Protocol of July 15th (28th), 1880, known as the Protocol of Sary-Kamiche, shall be applied in such a way that the village of Kevlik shall remain in Turkey, and the villages of Bilejik, Eazi, Gharatil (Haratil), the two Jelliks, and Panamerik, shall remain in Persia. The frontier following the -Omar ridge shall ascend the mountain of Surava, and, leaving Khanyga on the Turkish side, shall pass by way of the watershed formed by the pass of Borush-Khuran, the mountain of Haravil, Beleko, Shinetal, Sardul, Gulambi, Kepper, Bergabend, Peri-Khan, Iskander, Avene, and Kotul. The valley of Bajirga shall remain in Turkey, and the villages of Sartyk and Sero in Persia, and the frontier shall pass from the southern extremity of Kotur over the ridge rising to the west of the Persian village of Behik, and, following the peaks of Seri-Baydost, shall join the crest of Mount Zont. — 15 —

From Mount Zont the frontier shall follow continuously the watershed between tie Persian districts of Tergever, Desht, and Mergever, and the Turkish of Hakkiari __ that is to say, the crests of Shiveh-Shishali, Chil-Chovri, Chel-Berdir, Kuna-Koter, Kazi-beg, Avukh, Mai-Helaneh, the mountains to the w est of Binar and Delamper ; then, leaving on the Persian side the basin emptying by way of Ushnu into the lake of Urumiya, including the sources of the Gadyr river known as Abi-seri-gadyr (the valley of which is situate to the south of Delamper and to the east of Mount Girdeh), it shall reach the pass of Keleh-Shin. To the south of Keleh-Shin the frontier shall leave on the Persian side the reservoir of Lavene, including the valley of Chumi-Geli (situate to the east of Zerdegel and to the south-west of Spi-rez), and on the Turkish side the waters of Eevnaduz, and shall pass by the following peaks and passes : Siah-Kuh, Zerdeh-Gel, Boz, Barzin, Ser-shiva, Kevi- Khoja-Ibrahim. Thence the frontier shall continue to follow towards the south the main chain of , leaving on the Persian side the basins of the affluents of Kialu on the right side : the streams Purdanan Khydyrava and Talkhatan. It is understood that the Turkish tribes which are in the habit of spending the summer in the said valleys at the Gadyr and Lavene springs shall still have the use of their pastures under the same conditions as in the past. Having reached the summit of Seri-Kele-Kelin, the line shall pass over Zinvi-Jasusan and the pass of Bamin, and shall cross the Vezne river near the Purde-Berdan bridge. The Delimitation Commission will have to decide as to the future of the village of Shenieh, on the basis of the general principle of the status quo. After Purde-Berdan, the frontier shall ascend over the chains of Foka-baba-kyr, Berde-spian, Berde-Abul-Fath and the pass of Kaniresh. It shall then follow the watershed formed by Lagav-Ghird, Donleri, the pass of Khan-Ahmed, and the southern extremity of Tepe-Salos. The frontier will thus pass between the villages of Kandol (Turkish) and Kesh-keshiva and Mazynava (Persian), and reach the course of the Kialu river (the Little Zab). After joining the course of the Kialu river, the frontier shall follow it upstream, leaving on the Persian side the right bank (the Alani-ajem) and on the Turkish side the left bank of that river. On reaching the mouth of the Khileh-resh river (an affluent of the Kialu on the left side), the frontier shall follow the course of that river upstream, leaving on the Persian side the villages of Alot, Kivero, etc., and on the Turkish side the district of Alani- Mavont. At the south-western extremity of Mount Balu, the frontier shall leave the course of the Khileh-resh river, and, ascending over the north-west extremity of the Surkew chain, extending to the south of the Khileh-resh river, shall pass over the Surkew ridge, leaving the districts of Siwel and Shive-Kel on the Turkish side. On reaching the astronomical point of Surkew almost at latitude 35° 49', the frontier shall pass in the direction of the tillage of Champar-aw, the future of which shall be decided hy the Delimitation Commission on the basis of the accepted principle of the status quo. The line shall then ascend over the chain of mountains which form the frontier between the Persian district of Baneh and the Turkish district of Kyzyieja ; Galash, Berdi-Kechel, Pusht-Hangajal, Du-bera, Parajal, and Spi-Kana, after which it shall reach the pass of Now-Khuvan. Thence, still following the watershed, the frontier shall turn southwards and then westwards, passing by way of the summits of Vul-Guza, Pushti-Shehidan, Hazar- Mal, Bali-Keder, Keleh-Melaik, and Kuhi-Koce-resha, separating the Turkish district of Teretul from the Persian district of Merivan. From there, the frontier shall follow the course of the Khalil-Abad brook downstream as far as its confluence with the Chami-Kyzylja, and then this last-named river upstream as far as the mouth of its left affluent flowing from the village of Bnava-Suta ; it shall follow this Bnava-Suta brook upstream and, by way of the passes of Keli-Naveh-Sar and Keli-, shall reach the pass of Surene, known, it appears, by the name of Chigan (or Chakan). The main chain of Avroman, extending in the direction north-west - south-east, shall then form the frontier between Persia and the Ottoman district of Shehrisor. On reaching the peak of Kemadjar (south-east of Kala-Selm and north-west of Sheri-Avroman), the frontier shall continue to follow the main ridge as far as its ramification on the western side, rising to the north of the valley of Dere-Vuli, leaving the villages of Khan-Germela and Nowsud on the Persian side. For the remainder of the frontier as far as Sir van, the Commission shall — by way of exception — delimit the ground, taking into consideration such changes as may have occurred there between the year 1848 and the year 1905. South of Sirvan, the frontier shall begin close to the mouth of the Chami-Zimkan, shall pass by way of the Beyzel (Bezel) mountain, and shall descend to the Chemi-Zerishk watercourse. Next, following the watershed between this last-named watercourse and the river which, rising in the Bend-Bemo, bears, according to the identic map, the name of Pushti-Gherav (Arkhevendu), it shall ascend to the summit of Bend-Bemo. After following the ridge of Bamu (Bemo), the frontier, on reaching the defile of Derbendi-Dehul (Derbendi-Hur), shall follow the course of the Zengeneh (Abbasan) river as far as the point nearest to the summit of Shevaldir (astronomical point) and situate below the village of Mamyshan. It shall ascend this summit and shall next pass by way of the crests of the hills forming a watershed between the plains of Tileku and Serkaleh, then by way of the chains of Khuli-Baghan, Jebel-Ali-Beg, Bender-Chok-Chermik, Sengler, and Asengueran, as far as the point in the Tengi- defileYsituate opposite the northern extremity of the Karawiz mountains. Thence the frontier shall follow the course of the river Kuretu as'far as the village of that name. The future of the village of Kuretu shall be decided by the Delimitation — 16 —

Commission on the basis of the nationality of its inhabitants. Thence the frontier shall pass by way of the road between the villages of Kuretu and Kush-Kurrek, then along the crests of Mounts Kishka and Ak-Dag, and then, leaving Kala-Sebzi in Persia, it shall turn southwards as far as the Ottoman post of Kanibez. Thence it shall follow the course of the Elvend river upstream as far as the point a quarter of an hour’s distance downstream from its confluence with the Gilan watercourse ; from that point it shall continue as far as the Naft-Su, skirting the Ab-Bakhshan in accordance with the line agreed upon with the late Mahmud Shefket Pasha and shown roughly on the map annexed to the note of the Imperial Eussian Embassy dated August 5th (18th), 1913, and leaving Naft-Mukataasy to Turkey. Thence, the frontier-line, following the Naft-Deressi, on reaching the point where the Kassri-Shirin road cuts that waterway, shall continue along the mountains of Varbulend, Konerigh-Keleshuvan, and Jebel-Gerebi (the extension of the Jebeli- Hamrinach in). The Delimitation Commission shall draw up a special agreement for the distribution of the Gengir (Sumar) waters between the parties concerned. The part of the frontier between Mendeli and the northern point of the line indicated in the declaration made in London on July 29th (Shuaib) between Hakky Pasha and Sir E. Grey not having yet been discussed in detail, the undersigned leave the establishment of that part of the frontier to the Delimitation Commission. As regards delimitation from the region of Hawizeh as far as the sea, the frontier-line shall start from the place called Umm-Shir, where the Khor-el-Duvel divides from the Khor-el-Azem. Umm-Shir is situate east of the junction of the Khor-el-Muhaisin with the Khor-el-Azem, nine miles north-west of Bisaitin, a place situate at latitude 31° 43' 29". From Umm-Shir, the line shall turn south-westwards as far as longitude 45°, at the southern extremity of a small lake known also by the name of Azem and situate in the Khor-el-Azem some distance north-west of Shuaib. From this point the line shall continue to the south along the marsh as far as latitude 31°, which it shall follow directly eastwards as far as a point north-east of Kushk-i-, so as to leave this place in Ottoman territory. From this point the line shall go southwards as far as the Khaiian canal at a point between the Kahr-Diaiji and the Kahr-Abu’l-Arabid ; it shall follow the medium filum aquas of the Khaiyin canal as far as the point where the latter joints the Shatt-al-Arab, at the mouth of the Kahr-Sazaileh. From this point the frontier shall follow the course of the Shatt-al-Arab as far as the sea, leaving under Ottoman sovereignty the river and all the islands therein, subject to the following conditions and exceptions :

(a) The following shall belong to Persia : (1) the island of Muhalla and the two islands situate between the latter and the left bank of the Shatt-al-Arab (Persian bank of Abadan) ; (2) the four islands between Shetait and Maawiyeh and the two islands opposite Mankuhi which are both dependencies of the island of Abadan ; (3) any small islands now existing or that may be formed which are connected at low water with the island of Abadan or with Persian terra firma below Nahr-Nazaileb. (b) The modern port and anchorage of Muhammara, above and below the junction of the river Karun with the Shatt-al-Arab, shall remain within Persian jurisdiction in conformity with the Treaty of Erzerum ; the Ottoman right of usage of this part of the river shall not, however, be affected thereby, nor shall Persian jurisdiction extend to the parts of the river outside the anchorage. (c) JSTo change shall be made in the existing rights, usages and customs as regards fishing on the Persian bank of the Shatt-al-Arab, the word “ bank ” including also the lands connected with the coast at low water. (d) Ottoman jurisdiction shall not extend over the parts of the Persian coast that may be temporarily covered by water at high tide or by other accidental causes. Persian jurisdiction, on its side, shall not be exercised over lands that may be temporarily or accidentally uncovered when the water is below the normal low-water level. (e) The Sheik of Mohammara shall continue to enjoy in conformity with the Ottoman laws his rights of ownership in Ottoman territory.

The frontier-line established in this declaration is shown in red on the map annexed hereto. 1 The parts of the frontier not detailed in the above-mentioned frontier-line shall be established on the basis of the principle of the status quo, in conformity with the stipulations of Article 3 of the Treaty of Erzerum.

II.

The frontier-line shall be delimited on the spot by a Delimitation Commission, consisting of commissioners of the four Governments. Each Government shall be represented on this Commission by a commissioner and a deputy commissioner. The latter shall take the commissioner’s place on the Commission in case of need.

Note by the Secretariat. — This waf was not annexed, to the memorandum from the Persian Government. — 17 —

III.

The Délimitation Commission, in the performance of the task devolving upon it, shall comply : (1) With the provisions of the present Protocol ;

(2) With the Eules of Procedure of the Delimitation Commission annexed (Annex (A)) to the present Protocol.

IV.

In the event of a divergence of opinion in the Commission as to the boundary-line of any part of the frontier, the Ottoman and Persian commissioners shall submit a written statement of their respective points of view within forty-eight hours to the Eussian and British commissioners, who shall hold a meeting and shall give a decision on the questions in dispute and communicate their decision to their Ottoman and Persian colleagues. This decision shall be inserted in the Minutes of the plenary meeting and shall be recognised as binding on all four Governments.

V.

As soon as part of the frontier has been delimited, such part shall be regarded as finally fixed and shall not be liable to subsequent examination or revision.

VI.

As the work of delimitation proceeds, the Ottoman and Persian Governments shall have the right to establish posts on the frontier.

VII.

It is understood that the concession granted by the Convention of May 28th, 1901 (9 sefer, 1319, of the hegira), by the Government of His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia to William Knox D ’Arcy and now being worked, in conformity with the provisions of Article 9 of the said Convention, by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Limited), having its registered office at Winchester House, London (the said Convention being referred to hereunder as “ the Convention ” in the Annex (B) to the present Protocol), shall remain in full and unrestricted force throughout the territories transferred by Persia to Turkey in virtue of the provisions of the present Protocol and of Annex (B) thereto.

VIII.

The Ottoman and Persian Governments will distribute among the officials on the frontier a sufficient number of copies of the delimitation map drawn up by the Commission together with copies of translations of the statement provided for in Article XV of the Commission’s Eules of Procedure. It is understood, however, that the French text alone shall be regarded as authentic. (Signed) Louis M a l l e t . E h tec h a m o s-S a l t a n e h Mahmud. Michel d e G ie b s . S a ïd H alim .

Annex IV.

E x p l a n a t o r y N ote r e l a t iv e to Ce r t a in S tipulations in t h e P r o p o s e d T r e a t y of E r z e r u m , a d d r e s s e d b y t h e B r it ish a n d E u s s ia n A m b a ssa d o r s at Constantinople to t h e O tto m a n G o v e r n m e n t on A p r il 26 t h , 1847.

The undersigned, representing the Mediating Courts of Great Britain and Eussia, have had the honour to receive the identic note, with annex, which His Excellency ’Ali , Minister for Foreign Aifairs, was pleased to address to them on the 11th instant, relating to the Turco-Persian negotiations. The undersigned are highly gratified to note from the communication in question His Excellency’s statement, on behalf of the Sublime Porte, of the decision to issue instructions forthwith to the Ottoman Plenipotentiary at Erzerum to sign the articles of the Treaty with — 18 — the Court of Persia unamended, according to the text drawn up by the Commissioners of the two Mediating Courts, as submitted for the acceptance of the Governments concerned bv their plenipotentiaries at Erzerum, subject to explanations by the representatives of the said Courts at Constantinople to the Sublime Porte on certain points which the latter does not consider sufficiently clear.

The points on which the Sublime Porte requires explanations are as follows :

1. The Sublime Porte presumes that the clause of Article 2 of the draft Treaty ceding the city, port, and anchorage of Muhammara, and the island of Khizr, to Persia, cannot include either the territory of the Sublime Porte comprised1 outside the city or the other ports of the Sublime Porte situate in these parts. The Sublime Porte is also concerned to know whether, under the terms of another part of the same article relating to tribes which, while actually belonging to Persia, may happen to be divided, one half being settled in Ottoman territory and [the other half in Persian territory, it follows that those parts of the tribes which are in Turkey will also become subject to Persia, and the territory in their possession will accordingly also be ceded to Persia ; and whether Persia will ever be entitled at some future date to dispute with the Porte the right to the possession of such territory.

2 . The Sublime Porte is concerned to know whether, under the existing terms of Articles 1 and 4, the Persian Government is entitled to include the pecuniary compensations as between the two Governments which it had entirely renounced, in the category of individual claims. The Porte understands these claims to apply solely to certain pasturage dues and to losses incurred by the respective subjects of the two Governments as a result of the activities of brigands and the like. The Sublime Porte further asks whether the Persian Government’s assent will be obtained on the question of fortifications added to Article 2 , as also in respect of the passages regarding reciprocity which were omitted in Article 7 of the Commissioners’ draft.

The undersigned Representatives, being anxious and bound to dispel the uncertainties of the Sublime Porte on all the above questions, hereby declare as follows :

A d 1 . The anchorage of Muhammara is the part situate opposite the city of Muhammara in the Haffar Canal, and this definition is not susceptible of any other interpretation. The undersigned Representatives are further in agreement with the Ottoman Minister in the view that, in ceding to Persia in the region in question the city, port and anchorage of Muhammara and the island of Khizr, the Sublime Porte is not ceding any other territory or any other ports there may be in this region. The undersigned Representatives further declare that Persia will not be entitled on any pretext whatsoever to put forward claims in regard to the regions situate on the right bank of the Shatt-al-Arab, or to the territory on the left bank belonging to Turkey, even where Persian tribes or parts of such tribes are established on the said bank or in the said territory.

A d 2. As regards the Sublime Porte’s apprehension that Articles 1 and 4 of the draft Treaty may be irregularly interpreted in such a way as to give rise to the revival by the Persian Government of the pecuniary claims as between the two Governments, the undersigned Representatives hereby declare that, inasmuch as it is explicitly stipulated in Articles 1 and 4 of the draft Treaty that all claims of this kind from whatever source are, and are to continue to be, waived, there can be no resumption of the discussions on the matter in any case, and that only the claims of individuals will be entitled to satisfaction by the two Parties respectively ; and, further, that the examination and validity of such individual claims will be subject, as agreed, to a special commission to be appointed ad hoc and that the decision as to what claims are to be regarded as individual claims will also have to be referred to this commission.

In reply to the two subsidiary questions raised at the conclusion of His Excellency ’Ali Effendi’s note, the undersigned Representatives believe that they are justified in stating that the Persian Government will readily agree to the insertion in Article 7 of the clauses with regard to reciprocity of treatment to be observed by both Governments in the mutual interest of their respective subjects, pilgrims and Consular Agents. As regards the question of fortifications, they can only express their personal opinion that a reciprocal undertaking on the part of the two Mussulman Governments not to fortify the banks of the Shatt-al-Arab would constitute one more guarantee of the maintenance of peaceful relations between the two countries, well calculated powerfully to cement the bonds of goodwill which it is the object of the Treaty in question to establish.

1 The word “ situate ” (situées) is used instead of “ comprised ” (comprises) in the extract communicated to the Persian Envoy in January 1848. — 19 —

The undersigned Representatives are accordingly entirely prepared to support the fulfilment of the wishes of the Sublime Porte on this point through the intermediary of their colleagues in Teheran ; and they have reason to hope that their representations in this connection will not be w ithout effect. At the same time, the undersigned Representatives are of opinion that the signature of the Treaty might without inconvenience take place without waiting for the issue of the negotiations on the special point in question, as to which there would be no difficulty in appending subsequently an additional clause to the Treaty. The undersigned, etc. Ou s t in o f , Pera, April 14th (26th), 1847. H. W ellesley.

Annex V.

R e p l y of the Ottoman Government to the British and Russian Ambassadors a t Constantinople .

I am in receipt of Your Excellencies’ collective official note of April 14th (26th) last in reply to my official note to Your Excellencies asking for certain explanations on the subject of the Persian Treaty. Your Excellencies’ note states in regard to the territories and tribes to which Article 2 of the draft Treaty relates that, although the Sublime Porte agrees in this article to the retention by Persia of the city and port of Muhammara, the anchorage opposite the city in the Haffar Canal and the island of Khizr, the Sublime Porte does not thereby cede any other port or territory in this region ; and, further, that the Persian Government will not be entitled to put forward any claim to proprietary rights either in respect of the regions situate on the right bank of the Shatt-al-Arab or in respect of the regions belonging to the Sublime Porte on the left bank, even where a Persian tribe or part of such tribe is established in such regions ; further, that the claims as between the two Governments which are waived in their totality by both Governments under Article 1 will not be included in the category of individual claims to which Article 4 relates ; and, further, that you have good grounds for hoping th at the Court of Persia will readily agree to the insertion of the clause embodying the principle of reciprocity which was omitted in Article 7. The Sublime Porte is satisfied with the above official explanations and assurances ; and His Majesty the Sultan, having complete confidence in the two Mediating Courts and in their Representatives, has ordered in the exercise of His Sovereign Will that instructions should be issued to His Excellency Enver Effendi, Plenipotentiary of the Sublime Porte at Erzerum, to sign the draft Treaty submitted by the Commissioners of the two Mediating Courts without amendment, on the understanding that the Court of Persia will accept the assurances which have been given by the Representatives of the two Mediating Courts to the effect that it will raise no claim going counter to those assurances, and on the further understanding that, in the event of any such claim being raised, the Treaty will be deemed to be null and void. It is for the purpose of bringing all the above considerations to Your Excellencies’ notice that this official note has been drawn up and is communicated to you.

(L. S.) E s -Sa id Me h m e d E m in ’A l i. Jemaziyyu - ’1 - evvel 29th, 1263.

Annex VI.

N ote fro m M irza M a h o m e d ’A li K h a n to th e R u ssia n a n d B r it ish A m b a ssa d o r s, dated January 14th/31st, 1848.

I hereby declare to Your Excellency that, in virtue of the mission with which I am entrusted by my Government for the exchange of ratifications of the Treaty of Erzerum, I concur entirely with the explanations given to the Porte by the representatives of the two Mediating Powers with reference to the three first points of Your Excellency’s communication. I further declare with reference to the fourth point of the same communication that I have no objection to the insertion in Article 7 of the passages in regard to reciprocity of treatment to be observed by the two Governments in relation to their respective subjects, pilgrims and Consular Agents, and further that, in the matter of the fortifications, His Majesty the Shah agrees that, so long as Turkey refrains from the construction of fortifications on the right bank of the Shatt-al-Arab opposite Persian territory, Persia will for her part refrain from such constructions on the left bank, possession of which is assured to her under the provisions of the Treaty. In faith whereof I have signed these presents and sealed them with my seal.

(Signed) M ah o m ed ’A l i. Pera, Sefer 23rd, 1264, corresponding to January 19th (31st), 1848. — 20 —

Annex VII.

T e h e r a n P rotocol o p D e c e m b e r 2 1 st , 1911.

The Persian and Ottoman Governments, inspired by a common desire to avoid henceforward any subject of controversy in respect of their common frontiers, having instructed the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Turkish Ambassador at Teheran respectively, to establish the bases of negotiations and the procedure to be followed for the delimitation of the said frontiers, the undersigned, after discussion, have agreed on the following points : I. A Commission consisting of an equal number of delegates of either Party shall meet as early as possible at Constantinople. II. The delegates of the two Governments, furnished with all the documents and evidence in support of their claims, shall be instructed to establish the boundary-line separating the two countries in a spirit of sincere impartiality ; after which, a technical commission shall have merely to apply the definite delimitation on the spot, on the basis laid down by the former commission. III. The work of the Joint Commission, which will meet at Constantinople, shall be based on the clauses of the treaty known as the Treaty of Erzerum, concluded in 1263 IV. Should the delegates of the two Parties fail to agree on the interpretation and application of certain clauses of that treaty, it is agreed that, at the end of a period of six months of negotiation, in order completely to settle the question of the delimitation of the frontiers, all the points on which any divergence exists shall be submitted together to the Hague Court of Arbitration, in order that the entire question may thus be definitely settled. V. It is understood that neither of the two Parties may adduce the military occupation of the territories in dispute as a legal argument.

Done in duplicate and exchanged in original between the undersigned, acting on behalf of their Governments.

The Imperial Ottoman Embassy, Teheran, December 21st, 1911.

(Signed) W o s s u g h e d -D o w l e h . (Signed) H . H a s s ib .

Annex VIII.

Persian Constitution of August 5th, 1906.

Article XX II.

The sale or cession of any part of the revenue or property of the State, and any alteration or rectification of the frontiers of the State, may only take place with the sanction of the Mejlis.

Article XXIV.

The conclusion of treaties and agreements and the grant of commercial, industrial or agricultural concessions (monopolies) — whether the beneficiaries be Persians or foreigners — must be ratified by the Mejlis, except in the case of treaties which must remain secret in the interests of the State and nation.

A d d it io n to t h e Constitutional L aw s (October 7th, 1907).

Article III. The frontiers of the State, provinces, and communes may only be modified in virtue of a law. — 21 —

Annex IX.

Ottoman Constitution of December 22nd, 1909. Article 7.

Amended in 1909. (Penultimate paragraph.) “ The sanction of Parliament is required for the conclusion of treaties relating to peace, commerce, or the cession or annexation of territory.”

Annex X.

E x t r a c t fr o m t h e M in u t e s of t h e D elimitation Com m ission of 1914.

Seventy-sixth Meeting.

The Ottoman Commissioner stated that he had received instructions from his Government to discontinue the delimitation. The other Commissioners, not having received any similar communication, said that they would refer to their respective Governments in order to report the facts and request instructions. In the meantime, it was decided to complete the maps as far as Mir Omar Dagh.

Seventy-seventh Meeting.

The Ottoman Commissioner said that he had received fresh instructions from his Government to inform the Commission that various considerations compelled the Ottoman Government to defer to a later date the delimitation of the section of the frontier situated between Mir Omar Dagh and Mount Hidir Baba. He said that the status quo would remain in force for that section, and the demarcation would be continued northwards. The Commissioner also pointed out that, as Article X III of the Protocol entitled the Commission to postpone the delimitation of a part of the frontier, no derogation from the provisions of that instrument was involved. The Persian Commissioner said he had already referred this matter to his Government, and he was of opinion that the frontier of that district should be marked on the map, the evacuation of the places which would fall to Persia being postponed to a later date. The Ottoman Commissioner declined this proposal. After discussion, the Commission noted the Ottoman declaration, but asked the Ottoman Commissioner whether he would submit to a majority vote, in accordance with Article XIII of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, drawn up and signed by the representatives of the four States. The Ottoman Commissioner said that he could not submit to a majority vote. The Russian Commissioner then pointed out that, in order not to lose time, and in view of climatic conditions, the demarcation should be continued. But, at the same time, he said, it should be noted that the Ottoman Commissioner’s refusal was contrary to the Rules of Procedure, and the fact should be notified to the respective Governments. After further discussion, the Commissioners accepted the view of the Russian Commissioner, and decided to resume the delimitation as from Hidir Baba.

Seventy-eighth Meeting.

The Persian Commissioner reported that he had notified his Ottoman colleague of the fact that he had been informed that Ottoman soldiers had again encamped at Seroet Sartyk. The Ottoman Commissioner said he had immediately telegraphed to Constantinople, and had just received a reply to the effect that, if such an occurrence had taken place, orders would be given for the withdrawal of those soldiers. The Commissioner thanked his Ottoman colleague for this reply, which, he said, demonstrated the goodwill of the Ottoman Government. — 22 —

Eighty-fourth Meeting.

The remarks of the Ottoman Assistant Commissioner in the previous Minutes regarding the delimitation of the Kotur gave rise to discussion. The Eussian Commissioner objected to the passage to the effect that the delimitation of that district was “ outside the powers of the Commission ”, since the Final Protocol mentioned the exact demarcation of the Kotur boundary. The three Commissioners had already protested against the delay which had occurred in the delimitation of that district as a result of the Ottoman Government’s refusal, which was contrary to Article XIII of the Eules of Procedure. The instructions received by the Eussian Commissioner from his Ambassador in Constantinople led him to think that it had been agreed to continue the delimitation on the sole condition that the villages of Kotur would not be evacuated for the moment by the Turkish detachments. There had been no mention of Kotur’s remaining undelimited. The British Commissioner also thought that the statements of the Mediating Commissioners were not ultra vires.

The Persian Commissioner requested that Djewzer, which was at present occupied by an Ottoman detachment, should be evacuated. The Ottoman Assistant Commissioner said that, in view of the mobilisation, he personally had no power to cause the districts which would fall to Persia as a result of the delimitation to be evacuated. He promised to make representations with a view to their evacuation. The Commissioners noted this promise. As a result of the reservations made by the Ottoman Assistant Commissioner, it was decided to sign the detailed Map of Kotur with the note “ approved without the frontier’s being marked A Sub-Commission was appointed to arrange for the erection of boundary-marka at the places mentioned in the instructions delivered to it.

Eighty-sixth Meeting.

The Ottoman Assistant Commissioner stated that he had received instructions to postpone the evacuation of Bulak-Bashi on account of the mobilisation.

Eighty-seventh Meeting.

The Persian Commissioner then made the following statement : “ When the Ottoman Commissioner, relying on Article 13 of the Constantinople Protocol, requested that the delimitation of Kotur be postponed, I informed him that the grounds on which he based his request were not in accordance with the spirit of the Protocol, since that document referred to a ‘ majority vote ’, whereas on this occasion my other colleagues did not endorse this proposal. Pending instructions from our Governments, however, we found ourselves compelled to continue the work to the north of Kotur. “ I have just received instructions from my Government not to leave the frontier until the delimitation of Kotur is completed, and I should be glad if my Ottoman colleague would agree with me that the work at Kotur be recommenced, in view of the following considerations : “ I would remind my colleagues of the word ‘ temporarily ’, used in the Protocol (Article XIII of the Eules) in respect of the postponement of work on any part of the frontier. This expression proves that postponements are only permitted for the duration of the Commission’s term. Now that the work of the Commission is coming to an end, it is essential to recommence the work temporarily postponed at Kotur. “ Moreover, in view of Article VI of the Final Protocol, the interested Parties are entitled to occupy all the districts falling to their share immediately after the delimitation. I do not think the Ottoman mobilisation in any way prevents the evacuation of the territory allocated to Persia. “ Not a single soldier has been taken from Djewzer, while Bulak-Bashi is merely a station consisting of two houses, without any other inhabitants. “ In these circumstances, I again request my Ottoman colleague to cause these two places to be evacuated.” — 23 —

The Ottoman Assistant Commissioner said that the question of evacuation was outside his province on account of the mobilisation, but he had written to his Government requesting that Djoowzer be evacuated ; as regarded Bulak-Bashi, he had been officially informed that that place would remain occupied until the end of the mobilisation. With regard to Kotur, he was ignorant of his Government’s point of view, and thought it needless to delay the completion of the Commission’s work on account of that question. The Russian Commissioner stated that he had received a telegram from his Ambassador at Constantinople to the effect that His Highness the Grand Vizier had kindly agreed to the proposal to delimit Kotur on the new map, and had promised to give the necessary instructions. The British Commissioner proposed that the Ottoman Commissioner should make a statement to the effect that, if he received the necessary instructions, he would recognise the frontier to be the line marked on the map annexed to the statement of the British and Russian representatives dated October lst/14th. The Ottoman Commissioner said he had not received permission even to discuss the Kotur question. The Chairman proposed to regard that day’s meeting as the final one, and to attach to the Minutes a description of the entire frontier except Kotur, but to hold a further meeting at Bazyrgan on October 28th in order to settle the question of Kotur. He begged the Ottoman Commissioner to telegraph immediately to his Government in order to obtain a reply before October 28th. The Ottoman Commissioner accepted the proposal, but said it would be difficult for him to wait longer. The next meeting was fixed for October 28th, at 2 p.m., at Bazyrgan.

Annex XI.

A g r e e m e n t R e g a r d in g t h e D e f in it io n of t h e F r o n t ie r -Lin e b e t w e e n P e r s ia a n d T u r k e y .

His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia and the President of the Turkish Republic, Being equally and sincerely desirous of finally defining the frontier-line between Persia and Turkey, and of thus consolidating the good understanding and relations of fraternity and amity reigning between their peoples, have resolved to conclude an agreement to that end, and have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries :

His Highness Mohamad Ali Khan F o r o u g h i, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Persia, His Excellency Dr. Tewfik R ü s t ü , Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey, who, being duly authorised, have agreed upon the following provisions :

Article I.

The frontier between Persia and Turkey shall start from the confluence of the River Aras and the River Karasu at frontier-mark No. 1 , situated in Persian territory. It shall then follow the thalweg of the Karasu upstream as far as Lake Borolan. It shall then proceed in a straight line as far as the hill lying 10 0 metres to the south-east of the sources of the Karasu ; is shall skirt the said hill to the east and north in such a way as to leave it in Persian territory. The line shall then again turn to the north-west so as to reach the Borolan rocks, which stand immediately above the sources of the Karasu. From mark No. 2, the frontier shall follow a straight line in the direction of mark No. 3 and of the Little Aghridagh, passing through marks Nos. 4, 5, 6 , 7, and 8 as far as mark No. 9, situated at a point 16 km. 600 in a straight line from the northernmost shore of Lake Borolan and 6 km. 400 from the highest point of the Little Aghridagh. It shall run parallel to the Bilijan Sheik-Babu road for a distance of 1,700 metres, whence it shall proceed to a point 100 metres to the south-east of Tojik Tepe, leaving that hill in Turkey. The line shall then turn to the south - south-west, passing 150 metres to the east of the village of Tojik, leaving that village in Turkey, and, continuing in the same direction, shall pass 100 metres to the west of the place known as Top, situated 3,000 metres to the east of Sheik Babu, Top remaining in Persia. Thence, the line shall continue towards the hill situated 2,500 metres to the south-east of Sheik Babu, and pass over the top of that hill, whence it shall continue in a south-westerly direction as far as the hill lying 1,300 metres to the east of the village of Hassan , and pass over the top of the last-mentioned hill ; the line shall then proceed in a westerly direction to the hill situated 800 metres to the south of the village of Hassan Agha, passing over the top of that hill. Thence, the line shall pass over the top of the hill situated 500 metres to the south-west, subsequently descending the ridge for 1,500 metres in a southerly direction, as far as a point situated 2,000 metres to the south-east of , whence it shall cross the pass between the two main peaks situated 800 and 1,000 metres respectively to the north of Hill 1948. — 24 —

The line shall then follow the ridge as far as Hill 1948 and shall pass over that hill ■ thence it shall proceed in a southerly direction following the watershed formed by the ridge of the Ayu-Beg mountains as far as the southernmost peak of those mountains, which lies 700 metres to the north-west of the bend in the road from Yarim Kaya to Guijo, which bend is situated at a point on the road 3,500 metres to the north-east of Yarim Kaya and 6,300 metres to the south-west of Guijo. Thence the line shall run parallel to and 200 metres to the west of the Yarim Kaya and Guijo road, as far as the cross-roads situated at 200 metres to the north of Upper Yarim Kaya, the said cross-roads remaining in Persia. Thence the line shall turn down to the west as far as a point situated 600 metres to the west of Yarim Kaya on the Yarim Kaya- Bulakh-Bashi road ; the line shall then turn down to the south as far as the northernmost point on the edge of the marsh ; thence, the line shall proceed towards the middle of the marsh, which it shall follow as far as its southern edge, 500 metres to the north of Chukhur- Besh. Then the line shall turn westwards as far as the summit of Hill 1668, Chukhur-Resh and Sheytan Abad remaining in Persia, and Girberan being assigned to Turkey. From the point thus situated between the Persian village of Sheytan Abad and the Turkish village of Girberan, the frontier shall ascend the ridge of the hill of Girberan to the west of Bazyrgan, and shall follow the watershed between the Turkish villages of Gurji Bulakh, Nazik and Kara Koymaz and the Persian villages of Bazyrgan, Kejot, Bash Kend and Marokeumu ; it shall then cross the pass situated between Marokeumu and Tawla (Turkish), and, leaving the ruins of Kasorlu and Sheik Asker on the Persian side, shall proceed to the Khoja Dagh rocks, pass over the Zindo-Dashy ridges from Kanly-Baba and Ak-Dagh, leaving the village of Jewzar in Persia, and shall pass along the ridges of Ak-Dagh and Kalender in such a way as to separate the fields of the Persian villages of Nifto, Salman Abad, and Pir Ahmed from those of the Turkish village of Deushurma, and, still following the watershed between Bayazid and Avajik, shall proceed to Khezin Geduk. From Khezin Geduk, the frontier, leaving the village of Kysylkaya in Turkey and the village of Silowmagul and Lake Kuru-Guel in Persia, shall pass over Mount Kara Guney, cross the River Bgrichay at Top Agh Dagh, pass through Kala Agh Dagh, leaving the village of Nado in Persia and that of Egrichay in Turkey, reach the Kyzyl Ziaret mountains, and cross the passes of Agh Diak and Khan Geduk, the Sary Chimen mountains, western peak of Dumanlu, and the pass of Kara Burga, leaving the villages of Sheik Selo in Persian territory, cross Mount Nawur, leaving the village of Yekmala in Persian territory, and pass through Rishkan, the hills between Davra and Akhurik, Geva-r Bagzadan, Gevri Makhin, and Khydyr Baba. From Khydyr Baba, the frontier-line shall follow the watershed 2,000 metres to the east of Lake Dasena Geul in a southerly direction as far as Hill 8000 ; it shall continue a further 1 ,00 0 metres along the ridge in the same direction, whence it shall turn south-east and follow the ridge in that new direction for a distance of 600 metres ; thence it shall again turn southwards as far as the top of a hill lying 500 metres away, leaving in Persia the elongated hill situated 250 metres to the north-east. Thence it shall follow the line of the ridge as far as the top of the hill situated 500 metres to the south-east, where it shall turn down to the south-west as far as the confluence of the Heratil Su (a brook coming from Heratil) and the Kotur Chay. Thence the line shall reascend the slope in a southerly direction as far as the submit situated at 800 metres’ distance, whence it shall descend, still in a southerly direction, to the valley of the Kanireshe, the thalweg of which it shall follow for a distance of 700 metres westwards and then 500 metres southwards ; it shall then dim lithe outlying spur of the ridge which rises towards Molla Mamed Dagh due southwards, passing through the middle of Molla Mamed Dagh, leaving in Persia the hill situated 250 metres to the oast of Molla Mamed Dagh, which hill it shall leave 250 metres to the east. From Molla Mamed Dagh, the line shall follow the ridge for a distance of 800 metres to a point situated on the road 200 metres to the east of Qishla, Qishla remaining in Turkey. The frontier shall then follow the line of the watershed in a south-easterly direction as far as the hill-top situated at 1,750 metres’ distance, 200 metres to the south of the bend in the road. Thence the line continues southwards along the ridge, as far as a point situated on the road which runs along the ravine 2,200 metres away ; from that point it shall reascend the slope in a southerly direction for a distance of 300 metres, striking the ridge lying to the south-west and continuing as far as a hill situated at a distance of 500 metres ; it shall then descend southwards along the line of the ridge as far as the ravine 900 metres away, along which runs the road between Tarsava and Chelik Ashagha ; it shall then follow the thalweg of the said ravine in a westerly direction for a distance of 500 metres, when it shall rise along the ridges as far as Hill 8200, 1,700 metres away. The line shall then follow the ridge in a south-easterly direction as far as Mount Kutch ; from Kutch the line shall follow the ridge, crossing the pass of Kashkul, as far as Mount Surawu ; from the Surawu mountains, the frontier, still following the line of the watershed, shall pass through Barush Khoran (leaving the village of Barush Khoran in Persian territory), and shall follow the Haravil mountain, the pass of Klianasur, Belako, Sary Chichek (leaving the village of Kalik in Persian territory), Kepper, Sorian, Mount Berhebin, the pass of Sultani, Mount Bara Zivan, Perikhan, Keifaruk, Maidan, and Kotul Dagh. The frontier-line shall leave Kotul Dagh, Hill 2869, and follow the line of the ridge in a south-easterly direction as far as a point situated on the River Baradost, 1,600 metres to the east of Bajirgh, leaving in Persia the ridge continuing Hill 1890 to the south (the frontier-line shall therefore pass through the ravine). Thence, the line shall proceed in a south-easterly direction, passing over the hill on which are situated frontier-marks Nos. 148 — 25 —

and 147, whence it shall turn east-south-east as far as the River Ekmaluk, situated 450 metres from the hill. It shall then proceed up the Ekmaluk ravine as far as the eminence situated 800 metres to the south of Hill 2300. Thence it shall follow the line of the ridge as far as Hill 2530 ; it shall then follow the line of the ridge in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 2,500 metres as far as a point situated 1,500 metres to the west of Alosan, which shall remain in Persia. Thence the line shall follow' the ridge in a southerly direction as far as the bend in that ridge, approximately 2,500 metres away. It shall then turn eastwards as far as Aladcr Dagh, still following the ridge. It shall then turn to the south-east along the ridge as far as the summit lying 2,400 metres to the north of the confluence of the brook coming from Paqui and of the Berderesh Chay. Thence the line shall descend southwards as far as the said confluence. It shall then follow the thalweg of the Berderesh as far as its confluence with the stream which comes down from the mountains 1 ,0 0 0 metres to the west of Garashin Dagh. The line shall follow the thalweg of the said stream in a southerly direction for a distance of 1,600 metres, after which it shall ascend to the ridge running in a south-easterly direction as far as the western peak of Garashin Dagh. The places known as Eli and Paqi shall remain in Turkey, and that known as Maz Bisho in Persia. From Garashin Dagh, the frontier shall pass through Kuna Koter, Zinwi Tabutan, Helan, and the pass of Keleshin, and ascend to the peak of Mount Delamper, and thence to mark No. 99 of the Turco-Iraqi frontier. For the exact line and full details of the frontier from mark No. 1 to mark No. 99 on the Iraqi frontier, reference shall be made to the nine maps (Nos. XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXII A, XXIII, XXIV, and XXV) on the scale of 1 : 84,000 and 1 : 50,000 and one tracing, approved by the Plenipotentiaries, initialled by the experts of both High Contracting Parties, and annexed to the present Agreement (the spelling of the place-names shall be in accordance with that shown on the aforementioned maps and tracing).

Article II.

A Delimitation Commission shall be set up to mark on the spot the frontier described in Article I. The Commission shall consist of four representatives, two appointed by the Persian Government and the other two by the Turkish Government. The Delimitation Commission shall meet in the course of the month of June 1932, and shall endeavour, in carrying out its duties, to follow the definitions laid down in the present Agreement as closely as possible. The expenses of the Commission shall be borne in equal shares by Persia and Turkey. The Contracting States undertake to assist the Delimitation Commission, either directly or through the agency of the local authorities, in all matters pertaining to accommodation, labour and the material (posts, frontier-marks) necessary for the performance of its duties. They further undertake to see that the trigonometrical marks, signs, posts or frontier- marks placed in position by the Commission are respected. The frontier-marks shall be set up within sight of each other ; they shall be numbered ; their exact positions and numbers shall be marked on a cartographical record. The final delimitation Minutes, maps, and annexed documents shall be made out in duplicate.

Article III.

The present Agreement shall be ratified, and the instruments of ratification exchanged at as soon as possible. It shall enter into force immediately on the exchange of ratifications. In faith whereof the above-mentioned Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Agreement and thereto affixed their seals. Done in duplicate at Teheran on January 23rd, 1932.

( Signed) M. A. F oroughi. (Signed) Dr. T. RÜSTÜ.

To His Highness Mohamad Ali Khan Foroughi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Persia. Teheran, January 23rd, 1932. With reference to Article I of the Agreement regarding the definition of the frontier-line between Turkey and Persia which we have this day signed, I have the honour to state that the frontier-guard posts of the two Contracting Parties shall be entitled to avail themselves on an equal footing of the waters of the sources of Lake Borolan, the grasslands situated to the south and west of the frontier-line within the radius of the said lake and the waters of the Salep, Kozlu and Yukari Yarim Kaya springs. It is understood that the present exchange of notes shall constitute an integral part of the Agreement signed under to-day’s date. (Signed) Dr. Tewfik Rüstü Bey, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey. — 26 —

To Ris Excellency Dr. Tewfik Rüstü Bey, Ministre for Foreign Affairs of Turkey. Teheran, January 23rd, 1932.

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your note of to-day’s date, in which Your Excellency, referring to Article I of the Agreement signed by us this day, made the following statement : “ The frontier-guard posts of the two Contracting Parties shall be entitled to avail themselves on an equal footing of the waters of the sources of Lake Borolan, the grasslands situated to the south and west of the frontier-line within the radius of the said lake and the waters of the Salep, Kozlu and Yukari Yarim Kaya springs. “ It is understood that the present exchange of notes shall constitute an integral part of the Agreement signed under to-day’s date.” I beg to state that I am in full agreement with the terms of Your Excellency’s note as quoted above. (Signed) M. A. F o r o u g h i, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Persia.

Annex XII.

I.

Translation of French Translation ,of Letter n°. 1209, DATED DECEMBER 9TH, 1934, FROM THE IRAQI CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES AT TEHERAN to the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs.

In accordance with instructions received from His Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq, I have the honour to enclose a copy of the letter which he has addressed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations on the subject of the Per so-Iraqi frontier, together with the annexes thereto. The letter is written in English, one of the two official languages of the League. I am also instructed by my Government to inform Your Excellency that, although the letter in question is worded as a complaint against the Persian Government, it is by no means the expression of any unfriendly sentiments. On the contrary, the essential aim of Iraq’s foreign policy, towards which my Government’s efforts have always been directed, is sincerity towards Persia. The Iraqi Government believes that the causes of the misunderstanding that has subsisted between our two countries for some years are to be found in a difference of opinion as to the correctness of the frontier delimitation made in 1914 — a final delimitation — and considers that the time is now opportune for the settlement of the dispute in question. I would conclude by informing Your Excellency that, once this difficulty has been overcome, the Iraqi Government looks forward to a new era of sincere friendship and co-operation between the two Governments and nations.

(Signed) M o v a f f a g h -o l-A l o u c i, Charge d'Affaires.

II.

TRANSLATION OF FRENCH TRANSLATION OF LETTER No. 40874, DATED DECEM BER 17th, 1934, FROM THE PE RIAN MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE IRAQI CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES.

I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter No. 1209 of December 9th, 1934, and the copy of the letter addressed by His Excellency Nouri Said Pasha, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Royal Government of Iraq, to the Secretary-General of th e League of Nations. I must thank you for intimating that the letter addressed to the League is not the expression of any unfriendly sentiment, and that sincerity towards Persia is the essential aim of Iraq’s foreign policy ; and I have the honour to inform you that my Government too is animated by no other sentiments. It has always been anxious to overcom e any difficulty that might arise between it and the neighbouring country, and its efforts have — 27 — always been directed towards that end, because it regards neighbourly relations between tjje two countries as necessary and indispensable, and considers that the true interests 0f Persia demand the prosperity of Iraq. None the less, the Imperial Government deeply regrets to observe that the Royal Government of Iraq persists in casting doubt upon Persia’s legitimate rights in connection ^ith the frontier-line between the two countries, and regards the acts of the Persian authorities, which do not exceed the limits of the rights of their country and the principles and rules of international law, as being of an aggressive nature. This circumstance is due to a misconception on the part of the Iraqi Government as to the legal validity of the documents which, in its view, should provide the basis for the determination of the frontier between the two countries — those documents being, for reasons that have frequently been brought to the notice of the competent Iraqi authorities, devoid of any legal force. Similar difficulties also existed in regard to the frontier between Persia and Turkey, and the two Governments had no other recourse than to proceed to a fresh delimitation of their frontier-line, and to secure the sanction of their competent legal authorities for the agreement on that subject, in order that it might become binding upon both Parties. It is beyond question that the era of sincerity and loyal co-operation between our two Governments and nations, to which you allude in your letter, cannot be inaugurated until the frontier-line between our two countries, which is one of the essential questions, is fixed upon a basis of right, justice and the principles of international law. The Imperial Government has always desired the establishment of such a basis in the question of the frontiers between the two countries, and, had the Iraqi Government taken the least step in that direction, it would have been most frankly and sincerely welcomed by the Persian Government. Apart from the negotiations that have taken place in the past on this subject between the authorities of the two States, I had certain conversations just lately, when I went to Geneva to attend the last session of the League Assembly, with His Excellency Nouri Said Pasha, and made every possible effort to find a solution of the problem. On my return from Geneva, I had some more lengthy conversations with the authorities of the Iraqi Government, in the hope of arriving at a satisfactory result. To my great regret, however, I was unable to achieve my object. Even now, should the Iraqi authorities be desirous of entering upon direct negotiations on the basis defined above, the Persian Government will have pleasure in complying with that desire. If they prefer the question to be submitted to the Council of the League, the Imperial Government will likewise acquiesce, since it places the utmost confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the Council, and has every hope that its legitimate arguments will be recognised and confirmed by that authority.

(Signed) B . K a z e m i, Minister for Foreign Affairs.