the state of qatar

167 Pages·2008·8.13 MB·English

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING MARITIME DELIMITATION
AND TERRITORIAL QUESTIONS
BETWEEN
QATAR AND BAEiRAiN
(QATAR V. BAHRAIN)
THE STATE OF QATAR
(Questions of Jut-isdiction and Admissibility)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
............................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION 1
.............................
CHAPTER 1 THE PROCEEDlNGS BEFORE THE COURT 1
' . .
.
SECTIO1N Qatar's Application filed on 8 July 1991 and Bahrain's
letters of 14 July and 18 August 1991. ............................................... 1..
SECTIO2N. The Order of the Court of il October 2991 .................................... 3
................
SECTIO3N . Questions of "jurisdiction and admissibility in this case" 3
. .........................................................
SECTIO4N Structure of Qatar's Mernorial 6
PART I THE DISPUTE3 SUBMIïTED BY QATAR TO THE COURT. .................... 9
.....................
CHAPTER II THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE DISPUTES 9
................................... ..... .......................................................................................
Introduction 9
.................................................
SECTIO1. N Qatar and Bahrain up to the 1930s 11
A . The Separate Identities of Qatar and Bahrain in
............................................................
the Agreements of 1868 12
.
B Qatar and Bahrain during the Turkish Presence in
............................................................................................
Qatar 13
.
C Further Confirmation of the Separate Identities of
Qatar and Bahrain by the United Kingdom and
............................................................................
Turkey in 1913 15
D . The Agreement of 1916 ............................................................ 16
.........................................................
The Disputes 17
. ...............................................................................
A Introduction 17
.
B The Dispute relating to Sovereignty over the
.............................................................................
Hawar Islands 19
. ....................
1 Bahrain's first clairn to the Hawar islands 20
.
2 Bahrain's attempt to annex the Hawar islands
................................ ... ..............
and the protests of Qatar 21
3 . The procedure adopted by the British in
making their decjsion of 11 July 1939 ........................ -22 .
.
4 The aftermath of the decision of 11 July
.....................................................................................
1939 24
. ....................
C The Dispute relating to Maritime Delimitation 26
1. The British decision of 23 December 1947 ...................2 6
...............................
2. The aftermath of the 1947 decision 27
. .
D . The Dispute relating to the DibaI and Qit'at
. .
...........................................................................
Jaradah Shoals 29
.
1 The British decision of 23 December 1947 on
..............................
the Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah shoals 29
.
2 The aftermath of the 1947 decision on the
.................................
Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah shoals ..31
.........................................................................................................................
Conclusions 3 1
......................................
CWTER II1 EFFORTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES +33
.
SECTIO1N The Continuity of the Disputes and Attempts to solve
......................... .. ..................*
them prior to the Saudi Mediation .33
SEC~IO2. N The Mediation of Saudi Arabia .....................................................3..5
.
A The 1978 Principles for the Framework to reach a
...........................................................
Settlement 35
B . The Gulf Cooperatjon Council Resolutions of
...........................................................................................
1982 39
C. The Meeting in May 1983. .................................................... ....39
. .....................
D The 1986 Incident concerning the Dibal Shoal 40
.
SECTIO3N The Agreement af 1987 accepting the Jurisdiction of the
....................................................................................................
Court 42
. ........................................
A The Agreement of December 1987 42
B . The Purpose and Content of the December 1987
..................................................................................
Agreement 44
.
SECTIO4N The Work of the Tripartite Committee on Methods to
..................................
approach the International Court of Justice 45
. .......................................................................
SECTIO5 N The Doha Agreement 55
.
A The Background and Negotiatjon of the
................................................................................
Agreement 55
. ...............................
B The Contents of the Doha Agreement -57
. ............... .. ..............................
SECTION 6 From December 1990 to 8 July 1991 59 .
PART II THE BASIS OP THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN TRE
...................................................................................................
PRESENT CASE 63
CHAPTER IV THE CONSENT OF THE IN.THE 1987 AND
DOHA AGREEMENTS AND THE COURT'S
.......................................... ...........m.............................
JURISDICTION 63
L;
. .......................................................................................
SECTIO1N Introduction 63
A . The Question of the Court's Jurisdiction ...............................6 3.
B . Consent as the Basis of the Jurisdiction of the
............................................................................................
Court 64
.
C Heads of Jurisdiction under Article 36 of the
.........................................................................................
Statute 66
D . The Essential Aspects of Consent ............................... 2
The Reality and Extent of Consent in Treaties and
Conventions under Article 36. paragraph 1. of the
..................................................................................................
Statute 68
. ................................................
A The Interpretation of Consent 68
. ..
1 Approaches to interpretation ....................... ............. 69
2. The aim of the Court's interpretation in
................................
relation to questions of jurisdiction 71
3 . Rules on interpretation of treaties and
.................
conventions under Article 36 of the Statute 72
. ........................................................................
B Form of Consent 77
. .............................................................
C Reciprocity of Consent 81
.
.......................................................
D Irrevocability of Consent 84
The Essential As1 ec ts of Consent aven under the
December 1987 greement and the Doha
..........................................................................................
Agreement 86
. ............................
A The Circumstance of the Saudi Mediation 86
. ...........................
B Consent to refer the Disputes to the Court 88
.
C Consent to the Subject .an.d Scope of the
........................ .........................................................
Disputes 89
. ..................
D The Seisin of the Court in the Doha Agreement 91
CHAPTER V OBSERVATIONS ON BAHEUIN'S CONTENTIONS .................9 7
........ ... .............................................................................................................
Introduction 97
SECTIO1.N Bahrain's Denial that the Doha Agreement is an
.................... .........................................
International Agreement 98
.:;
A. The Alleged "Political Character" of the Doha
Agreement ........................................
> .'
B. The Allegation that the Doha Agreement is not "ln
.....................................................................................
Force" 101
SECTIO2N. Bahrain's Denial that the Doha Agreement is a Binding
Agreement because of Lack of CompIiance with the
.................................
Requirements of Bahrain's Constitution 104
A. The General Framework of the Vienna
..........................................................................
Convention 106
B. The Conclusion of a Treaty is governed by
...................................................................
International Law 107
.....................
C. The Requirements of Bahrain's Constitution 108
D. Article 46 of the Vienna Convention is not
Relevant in the fr esent Case ...................................... .. ........ 109
SECTIO3.N Bahrain's Denial that the Text of the Doha Agreement
contains Consent by Bahrain to the Unilateral Seisin of
................................ .......................................
the Court by Qatar ... 111
A. Bahrain's Allegation that it never accepted that the
Court could be seised except by a Special
...............................................................................
Agreement 111
1. Bahrain's contention that the Mediâtion could
.................................
only lead to a special agreement 11 1
2. Bahrain's contention that the Doha
Agreement only contemplates a joint
submission to the Court on the basis of the
....................................
Arabic expression "al-tarafan" 114
..............................................
a) Linguistic reasons 114
b) Reasons taken from the general context
.................................................
of the Agreement 115
General rule of interpretation of a
c)
......................................................................
treaty 117
.............................................
.d) Preparatory works 119
3. Bahrain's contention as to the rneaning of the
words "the proceedings (or the procedures)
....................................................
arising therefrorn" 120
B. Bahrain's Denial that the Bahraini Formula is an
Agreement on the Subject of the Disputes to be
submitted to the Court ................................................... 121
1. Bahrain's contention that the Bahraini
.................................
formula had lapsed as an offer 123
2. Bahrain's contention that the acceptance by
Qatar of the Bahraini formula is not sufficient
to establish acceptance of the subject and
.,, ,
scope of the disputes to be submitted to the
...............................................................................
Court 124
3. Bahrain's contention that the text of the
Bahraini formula was devised for a special
agreement and does not fit a unilateral
................................
application ............................... 124
.,
4. Bahrain's contention that Qatar's unilateral
application prevents Bahrain from seising the
............................................
Court with its own claims 127
5. Bahrain's contention that Qatar's unilateral
application would allow Qatar to submit
evidence in an inadmissible manner ........................... 130
.......................................................................................................
PART IIi SUMMARY 133
SECTIO1.N There are Existing Disputes between Qatar and
.........................
Bahrain, and Qatar's Application is Admissible 133
SECTIO2.N The Jurisdiction of the Court has been established by
....................................................
Agreement between the Parties 134
SECTIO3.N The Failure of the Tripartite Cornmittee's Approach to
seise the Court by the Method of a Special
......................................................................................
Agreement 135
SEC~IO4.N The Doha Agreement allowed the Seisin of the Court
...........................................................................................
by Qatar 136
........................................................................................................................
SUBMISSIONS 139
.............................................................................
LIST OF DOCUMENTARY ANNEXES 142
.................... ........... ...................................................................................
LIST OF OPINIONS 154
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIVE MAPS ......................................................................................... 155

INTRODUCTION
This Meinorial is filed in accordance with the Order of the Court dated
11 Octuber 1991 which fixed 10 Febriiary 1992 as the tiine-limit for the Meinorial
of the State of Qatar.
%*,
CHAPTER 1 .
ii i
THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
SE~:~'I1O. N Qatar's Aaplicatiun filed un 8 Julv 1991 aiid Bahrain's letters of
14 Julv and 18 August 1991
1 As stated i1-i the Order of tlie Court, on 8 July 1991 the State of Qatar
("Qatar") filed in the Registty of the Court the Application institiiting proceedings
ligainst the State of Bahrain ("Bahrain") in respect of certain disputes between the
two States relating to sovereignty over the Hawar islands, sovereign rights over
the shoals of Dibal and Qit'stt Jaradah, and the delimitation of the maritime arelis
of the twu States. Paragrnphs 2 to 30 of the Application contained a very brief
indication of the geographical and historical background to the disputes, and
paragraphs 11 to 25 gave a brief description of the subject of the disputes.
Paragraphs 26 to 35) outlined the efforts to settle the disputes which until now
have failed to result in a settlement.
1.02 As stated in paragraph 40 of the Application, Qatar founds the jurisdiction
of the Court upon certain Agreements between the Parties concluded in
Deceinber 1957 ("the 1957 Agreement") and Dece~nber 1990 ("the Doha
Agreement"). These Agreements are referred tu in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the
1.
Application and paragraphs 37 and 35 of the Application respectively
1.03 For the subject and scope of the disputes referred to the Cuiirt, the
Application (paragraph 40) relies on the Bahraini formula, an English version of
wliiçli, as pruvided by Bahrain, is given in paragraph 36 uf the ~~~ liciitiToline ~.
torrnula was proposed by Bahrain on 26 October 1988 and aççepted by Qatar in
1 The relevanr texis may be îuii~idi n Aniiexes 11.15 and 1i.16, Vul. III, pp. 101 and 107 and
Anncx 11.32, Vol. III, p. 205 hcrcto.
2 See also, Aiinex 11.29, Vol. ILI, p. 191.
-3
.
Decernber 1990. It was incorporated into the December 1990 Agreement by the'
words "may submit the mütter to the International Coiut of Justice in accordance
with tlie Bahraini forrnula, which has been ücc'epted by Qatar". The furiniila as
quoted in paragraph 36 of the Applicatjon reads as follows: .
"The Parties request the Court to decide any inatter of territorial
right or ottier title or interest which lnay lx a inatter of differeiice
between them; and to drsiw a single maritime boiindary between
their respective rnsiritime areas of seabed, subsoil and superjacent
w:iters." iI- . i
1.04 The formula thus adopted by the Parties is unquestinnübly wide enough tci
cover the claims of Qatar as presented in the requests to the Court formiilated in
paragraph 41 of the Application. It is, indeed, a foriniila which inay well open the
way for Bahrain ta submit to the Court a claiin based un any relevant dispute on
which Bahrain rnay wish to seek adjudication, but it is not for Qatar to formulate
and submit any such claiin.
1.05 By letters dated 14 July 1991 iind 18 Aiigust 1991 meritioned in the Orcler
of the court3, Bahrain coiitested the Liasis of jurisdiction invoked by Qatar. The
Ietter of 14 July went even further and, relying on Article 35, paragraph 5, of the
Rules of Court, rey~iestedt hat the Application should not be entered in the
General List, and that no action should be taken in the proceedings. Article 38,
paragraph 5, being cleiirly inapplicable in the present cirçumstances, the case was,
in due course, given a title and entered in the Generül List as recurded in the
Order. The equally unfounded contention made in the letter of 14 July, that the
continuation of the Mediation precluded a unilateral application to the Court, will
be dealt with later in this Memorial.
1.06 The letter of 18August 1991 çontested the jurisdiction of the Court in
strortg terms and üt some length but on grounds whiçh, as wiIl be shown
subsecluently in this Memorial, are ill-founded.
As ihese Iwo letlers are meiilioiied in the Order and now form par1 ol the record of fie
Cciurt, copies are not annexed to lhis Memorial.