No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Colonial Legacy: The Dispute Over the Islands of Abu Musa, the Greater and Lesser Tumbs, Farhang Mehr, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1997, ISBN 0–7618–0876–0, xiv + 250 pp., appendices, bibliography. - The Historical, Political and Legal Bases of Iran's Sovereignty over the Islands of Tumb and Abumusa, Davoud Hermidas Bavand, New York: Internet Concepts, 1994, ISBN 0–9643106–0–0, 128 pp., map.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2022
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Reviews
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association For Iranian Studies, Inc 2000
References
page 262 note 1. Guive Mirfendereski, “The Tamb Islands Controversy, 1887-1971: A Case Study in Claims to Territory in International Law” (Unpublished dissertation, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, May 1985. Maps, diagrams, appendices, bibliography, i-xxii, 798 pages.)
page 263 note 1. Compare A Colonial, 142 with my thesis, pp. 204-205 (same thoughts and statements about Iran's claim of historical title); 143/208-11 (ancient references to Great Tonb); 146/844-45 (Mustawfi's description of the islands of the Persian Gulf, and copying my thesis’ reference to the same 1927 edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam when such a citation by Mehr is completely meaningless in relation to the corresponding text); 170-71/338-40 (British attack on the Persian coast in 1819, compensation paid to the Qawasim of Lengeh, cites the same sources); 150/284-86 (Curzon's passage, meaning of “coastal possessions”); 172/372 (“Unfortunately, the original documents of some of these correspondences are non-existent”/“Unfortunately, the text of… does not appear to be in existence”); 182-83/362-66 (discussion of three British memoranda, impeachment of one memorandum, notice of factual mistakes, discussion of the terms “apparently,” “equal interest,” and “usufruct”); 190-91/581-82 (establishment of an Iranian commission to assert sovereignty over the islands, surveillance of the isles by the British Air Force, Iranian protest through the Swiss embassy in Tehran); 191/584 (administrative reorganization of Iran's coastal diṣtricts); 195/380 (Iranian claim that Sirri and Great Tonb islands had paid taxes to Iran); 198-200/406-19 (verbatim quotation of the passages quoted in reviewer's thesis from the Palmas Island Case, The Costa Rica-Nicaragua Boundary Case, and The Temple Case); 202-03/466, 468-69, 474-75, again 468-69, and 477 (discussion of “occupation” as a legal concept in bits and pieces of borrowed phrases, thoughts, and cases); 205-06/532, 536, 538, 540, 541, 542, 560-63, 568, and 573-76 (discussion of the legal doctrine of acquisitive prescription in bits and pieces of borrowed phrases, thoughts, and cases).
page 263 note 2. Thesis, 402.
page 263 note 3. A Colonial, 197.
page 264 note 1. Thesis, 404-05.
page 265 note 1. See Bavand, Davoud H., “The Legal Basis of Iran's Sovereignty over Abu Musa Island,” in Amirahmadi, H., ed., Small Islands, Big Politics (New York: St Martin's Press, 1996), 103Google Scholar, note 6: “The author gratefully acknowledges the research and information contained in Dr. Mirfendereski's work, which formed in part the basis for Bavand, Tunb and Abu Musa.”