44.

Qatar vs Bahrain

Facts:
On 8 July 1991 Qatar filed an Application instituting proceedings against 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'at Jaradah, and
the delimitation of the maritime areas of the two States. In its Application Qatar
founded the jurisdiction of the Court upon two agreements between the Parties
stated to have been concluded in December 1987 and December 1990 respectively,
the subject and scope of the commitment to jurisdiction being determined by a
formula proposed by Bahrain to Qatar on 26 October 1988 and accepted by Qatar in
December 1990 (the "Bahraini formula").
There were exchanges of letters between the King of Saudi Arabia and the Amir
of Qatar dated 19 and 21 December 1987, and between the King of Saudi Arabia and
the Amir of Bahrain dated 19 and 26 December 1987, and the document headed
"Minutes" and signed at Doha on 25 December 1990 by the Ministers for Foreign
Affairs of Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
The Doha Minutes not only confirmed the agreement reached by the Parties to
submit their dispute to the Court, but also represented a decisive step along the way
towards a peaceful solution of that dispute, by settling the controversial question of
the definition of the "disputed matters". This is one of the principal objects of
paragraph 2 of the Minutes which, in the translation that the Court will use for the
purposes of the present Judgment. Paragraph 2 of the Minutes, which formally
placed on record Qatar's acceptance of the Bahraini formula, put an end to the
persistent disagreement of the Parties as to the subject of the dispute to be
submitted to the Court. The agreement to adopt the Bahraini formula showed that
the Parties were at one on the extent of the Court's jurisdiction. The formula had
thus achieved its purpose: it set, in general but clear terms, the limits of the dispute
the Court would henceforth have to entertain.

Issue:
WON the two States should be bound by the signing and exchange of Minutes
between the two heads of state with the binding force of an international
agreement.

Held:
YES. To ascertain whether it can be considered as an international agreement,
the Court must have regard for its actual terms and the particular circumstances in
which it was drawn. The Minutes had included a reaffirmation of the obligations they
entered into, and were not, thus, a simple record of the meeting but enumerate the
commitments to which the parties have consented, thus creating rights and
obligations in international law for the parties and validly constitute an international
agreement. When it was contended that there was no intention to be bound by the
Minutes, the Court deemed it unnecessary to have to look into intentions because of
the signatures of the two ministers.