HISTORY 1

HISTORY

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between

Qatar and Bahrain
QATAR v.BAHRAIN (2001)

Synopsis submitted to: Dr. Nazima Munshi

Submitted by: Priyanandan Kumar
SY BALLB ‘B’ (SEM III)
Roll no: B005
 HISTORY 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Case Overview 3

2. Facts of the Case 4

3. Key Substantive Issues 5

4. Series of Events 6

5. Reason for the Series of Events 6

6. Judgment 7

7. Implementation of Judgment 9

8. Court Interpretation 9

9. Laws into Consideration 10

10. Conclusion/Opinion 11

11. References 12
 HISTORY 3

1. Case Overview

Case Name:
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.
Bahrain), 2001

Citation:
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahr.),
Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1994 I.C.J. Rep. 112 (July 1); Jurisdiction and Admissibility,
1995 I.C.J. Rep. 6 (Feb. 15); Judgment, 2001 I.C.J. Rep. 40 (Mar. 16).

Judges:
Oda, Bedjaoui, Ranjeva, Herczegh, , Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-
Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawnek, Buergenthal

Judges ad hoc: Torres Bernardez, Fortier

President: Guillaume

Represented By:
 Qatar: H.E. Mr. Abdullah bin Abdulatif Al-Muslemani and others
 Bahrain: H.E. Mr. Jawad Salim Al-Arayed and others.
 HISTORY 4

2. Summary of the Case

The case between Qatar and Bahrain involved a longstanding territorial sovereignty and
maritime boundary dispute between the two gulf neighbors.

Central to the question of sovereignty was a 1939 decision by the British government, which
at the time considered both Qatar and Bahrain British “protected states,” that the Hawar Islands
belonged to Bahrain. Qatar protested that decision for decades, including after its status as a
British protected state ended in 1971.
The two sides sought to mediate the dispute under the good offices of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia beginning in 1976. After those mediation efforts failed, Qatar instituted proceedings
before the International Court of Justice in 1991, submitting to the court the whole of the
dispute and asking it to “draw a single maritime boundary between their respective areas of
seabed, subsoil and superjacent waters.”
After a lengthy jurisdictional phase, the court issued its merits judgment, awarding sovereignty
over the Hawar Islands to Bahrain, and over Zubarah and Janan Island, including Hadd Janan,
to Qatar. The court’s sovereignty determinations factored considerably into the location of the
maritime boundary, shown below.
The maritime boundary established by the court consists of 42 turning points that delimit the
territorial sea as well as the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf of the two
sides.

Within the territorial sea, the court constructed an equidistance line, giving full effect to islands
on both sides (with one exception) but disregarding the presence of low-tide elevations within
the area of overlapping 12 nm territorial sea entitlements.
Beyond the territorial sea, the court provisionally drew an equidistance line, and then adjusted
that line to disregard the presence of a feature that, had it been included, would have in the
court’s assessment led to an inequitable result. The southern terminus is where the boundary
intersects with the delimitation line between the maritime zones of Saudi Arabia on the one
hand and of Bahrain and Qatar on the other. The northern terminus is where the boundary
intersects with the delimitation line between the respective maritime zones of Iran on the one
hand and of Bahrain and Qatar on the other.
 HISTORY 5

3. Key Substantive Issues

The major issues involved the jurisdiction of matters and sovereignty on the islands. This paper
will briefly discuss the parties’ argument and underline the issues on jurisdiction and
sovereignty before turning to the issues of maritime boundary.
1. Jurisdiction: On the basis of many exchanges of letters between the king of Saudi
Arabia and the amir of Qatar, between the king of Saudi Arabia and the amir of
Bahrain, as well as a signed agreement by the foreign ministers of these nations, Qatar
requested court jurisdiction. Qatar claims that these letters constituted international
agreements and that the parties consented to the court's jurisdiction over the entire case
under the formula proposed by Bahrain to Qatar on October 26, 1988, and approved
by Qatar in 1990.
Qatar contended that the exchange of letters constituted the two parties' "express
promises" to bring their disputes to the court, and that the court was thus entitled to
adjudicate the dispute. Bahrain claimed that the exchanges were not legally binding
instrument and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case without its consent.

2. Sovereignty: Competing sovereignty claims to the (i) Hawar Islands, (ii) Janan Island,
and (iii) Zubarah were at the heart of the disagreement. Although the sovereignty
dispute has a long and complicated history, it was centred on a British government
declaration in 1939 that the Hawar Islands belonged to Bahrain. Qatar has been
protesting that ruling for decades and has challenged its legality in the court's merits
procedures.
I. Hawar Islands
Given that most of the Hawar Islands were within 3 nautical miles of Qatar's
shore and all of them were within 12 nautical miles, Qatar cited proximity and
territorial unity to support its claim to sovereignty over the Hawar Islands. Qatar
also questioned the legality of the British government's 1939 decision, stating
that it had not consented to the procedure that led to it.
Bahrain dismissed the importance of geographical proximity, claiming that such
proximity could not divest Bahrain of its right to the Hawar Islands, which it
had held since the eighteenth century. Bahrain also cited a British government
decision from 1939, arguing that it should be considered a binding arbitral
award or, alternatively, a binding political decision.

II. Janan Island

Bahrain maintained that the 1939 judgement applied to Janan Island, which is
located south of the Hawar Islands near Qatar's shore. Bahrain's appeal was
dismissed by the court, which determined that the 1939 judgement upheld
Qatar's sovereignty over Janan Island, including Hadd Janan.
 HISTORY 6

III. Zubarah
The court ruled in favour of Qatar in the case of Zubarah, which is located in
the northwest corner of the Qatar peninsula, noting that the sheikh of Qatar
gradually consolidated authority over it beginning in 1868, that this authority
was recognised in a 1913 Anglo Ottoman Convention, and that it was
“definitively established” in 1937. The court further stated that, contrary to
Bahrain's claims, the United Kingdom does not recognise Zubarah as a Bahraini
territory.

3. Maritime Boundary: Qatar requested that the court establish a single, all-purpose
maritime boundary “between their respective maritime territories of seabed, subsoil,
and adjacent water.” However, by the time the court got to the maritime boundary
concerns, the court had resolved one or more sovereignty claims in favour of the other
side, negating portions of both sides' maritime border views.

4. Sequence of Events

 On 8 July 1991 the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar filed in the
Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the State of Bahrain
in respect of above mentioned issues.
 On 14th July 1991, Bahrain contested the jurisdiction invoked by the Qatar.
 By an order of 11 October 1991, the President of Court in accordance with Article 31
of the Rules of Court, decided to address written pleadings first and also limited the
filing of memorial from both the parties.
 The Parties were heard on the issues of the Court's jurisdiction and the admissibility of
the Application during public hearings held between February 28 and March 11, 1994.
 By a Judgment of 1 July 1994, the Court found that the exchange of letters between the
king of Gulf nation shows that there were international agreements creating rights and
obligation for the parties to sublime whole dispute to the Court.
 The Court found that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between Qatar and
Bahrain that had been submitted to it; that it was now seised of the entire dispute; and
that the Application of the State of Qatar as formulated on 30 November 1994 was
admissible in its entirety by a judgement dated 15 February 1995.
 By letter of 25 September 1997, the Agent of Bahrain informed the Court that his
Government challenged the authenticity of 81 documents, copies of which had been
produced by Qatar as annexes to its Memorial.
 After many letter produced by the Qatar, Court on 25 November 1997 concluded that,
It was agreed, among other things, that the Counter-Memorials would not address the
authenticity of the papers contested by Bahrain, and that the Parties will file additional
pleadings at a later date.
 HISTORY 7

 The Counter-Memorials of the Parties were duly filed and exchanged on 23 December
1997.
 By an order of 17 February 1999, the Court, taking into account the Parties' shared
views on the treatment of the disputed documents and their agreement on the extension
of time limits for filing Replies, placed on record Qatar's decision to disregard, for the
purposes of this case, the 82 documents whose authenticity had been questioned by
Bahrain, and decided that the Rebuttal should be filed.
 The Court ruled that no further written pleadings would be filed in the matter after a
conference between the President of the Court and the Agents of the Parties on June 28,
1999.
 On November 16, 1999, the President of the Court met with the Agents of the Parties
again, and the latter stated their agreement that the merits hearings would begin on May
29, 2000.

5. Reason for the Series of Events

For 65 years, from 1936-2001, Qatar and Bahrain disputed sovereignty of the Hawar Islands,
th efashts (shoals) of al-Dibal and al-Jaradah, territorial waters of the Persian Gulf, and
Zubarah, a district on the Qatari peninsula. The territorial dispute was peace- fully resolved
when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced a final and binding ruling on the case
on March 16, 2001. The case had been the longest, most protracted, and most complex case
ever brought to the Court. The ruling awarded Bahrain with the Hawar Islands and al-Jaradah
and rewarded Qatar with Zubarah, the Janan Islands, and al-Dibal. The division of disputed
territory involved each state receiving approximately half of the islands and shoals. Both Qatar
and Bahrain accepted the ruling so that the dispute was settled in finality, and both states
immediately began exploitation of oil and natural gas resources. The case was expected to
receive much scrutiny from other states in the region involved in territorial disputes, making it
a significant case.
 HISTORY 8

6. Judgment
The Court in its judgment concerning the maritime dispute between Qatar and Bahrain held
that:

 Qatar has sovereignty over Zubarah,

 Bahrain has sovereignty over the Hawar Islands; unanimously recalled that vessels of
Qatar enjoy in the territorial sea of Bahrain separating the Hawar Islands from the
other Bahraini islands the right of innocent passage accorded by customary
international law;
 Qatar has sovereignty over Janan Island, including Hadd Janan;
 Bahrain has sovereignty over the island of Qt'at Jaradah; unanimously found that the
low-tide elevatior of Fasht ad Dibal falls under the sovereignty of Qatar;
On the jurisdiction issue court sided with Qatar, finding that the exchanges of letters were
international agreements creating rights and obligations for the parties, and that under the
terms of those agreements, the parties had undertaken to submit to the court the whole of the
dispute between them, as circumscribed by the Bahraini formula.
On the issue of sovereignty:

a. Hawar Island: The court concluded that although the 1939 decision should not be
regarded as a binding arbitral award, Bahrain and Qatar had entrusted the British
government with making a decision on the Hawar Islands, and that decision was in
turn binding on the parties. In light of this conclusion, the court found it unnecessary
to address the parties’ other arguments (not addressed above) regarding the existence
of an original title, effectivités, or the applicability of the principle of uti possidetis
juris.
b. Janan Island: The court rejected Bahrain’s argument, finding instead that the 1939
decision supported Qatar’s sovereignty over Janan Island, including Hadd Janan.
c. Zubarah: The court further noted that, contrary to Bahrain’s arguments, Great Britain
had not regarded Zubarah as belonging to Bahrain.

On the issue of Maritime Boundary:

The court noted at the outset that because Bahrain is a party to the UNCLOS but Qatar is not,
the delimitation of their maritime boundary would be governed by customary international
law. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982
a. Territorial Sea Boundary: The parties and the court all agreed that article 15 of the
UNCLOS reflects the applicable customary international law governing the
delimitation of the territorial sea, which the court referred to as the
“equidistance/special circumstances” rule. Since neither party had specified baselines
for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea, the court first sought to determine the
location of baseline points to be used in the construction of an equidistance line.
The court upheld Bahrain’s sovereignty claim over Qit’at Jaradah, which it concluded
was above water at high tide, but questioned whether similar rules (governing territorial
An intl treaty that provides a regulatory framework for the use of the worlds seas and oceans and to ensure
the conservation and equitable usage of resources and the marine environment.
 HISTORY 9

acquisition) could be applied to low-tide elevations. The court observed that “[i]t
is…not established that…low-tide elevations can, from the viewpoint of the acquisition
of sovereignty, be fully assimilated with islands or other land territory.
The court further rejected Bahrain’s argument that it could assimilate itself to an
archipelagic state for purposes of drawing archipelagic baselines. The court then turned
to whether any special circumstances made it necessary to adjust the provisionally
drawn equidistance line.
Finally, the court determined it would be appropriate to simplify the delimitation line
“in accordance with common practice” in the region of the Hawar Islands, but failed to
specify the technical approach used to accomplish that task.
The court emphasized that, since Bahrain is not entitled to use straight baselines, Qatari
vessels, like the vessels of all states, enjoy the right of innocent passage in the areas of
territorial sea lying between the Hawar Islands and Bahrain’s main islands.

b. EEZ and Continental Shelf Boundary: The court assessed whether several of the
parties' submissions constituted the type of situation that would require the equidistance
line to be adjusted in order to achieve an equitable result:
 The court rejected Bahrain's contention that the location of the maritime
boundary should be changed in Bahrain's favour because of particular pearl
fishing banks north of Qatar, which are typically frequented by Bahraini pearl
divers.
 Qatar's claim that a 1947 British government resolution splitting seabed rights
between the two sides for oil concession purposes had any direct bearing on the
maritime boundary delimitation was rejected by the court.
 Qatar's contention that the gap was unjustified was likewise dismissed by the
court. As a rule of thumb, appropriate coastal lengths should be taken into
account. Qatar contended that a specific or important condition should be
considered. As a result, the boundary line will be adjusted in Qatar's advantage.
The only circumstance that the court did conclude necessitated an adjustment to the
provisionally drawn equidistance line was the presence of Fasht al Jarim, a sizable maritime
feature partly situated in Bahrain’s territorial sea. The court described the feature as a “remote
projection of Bahrain’s coastline in the Gulf area, which, if given full effect, would ‘distort the
boundary and have disproportionate effects. The court went on to note that using this feature
“would not lead to an equitable solution” and that it should therefore have no effect in
determining the boundary line in the northern sector.
 HISTORY 10

7. Implementation of the Judgment

It appears overall that the two sides have not contested the court’s decision on sovereignty
over any of the features in question or on the location of the maritime boundary,
notwithstanding rhetoric apparently used by Bahrain’s state news agency in the context of the
broader Gulf crisis in 2017.

For its part, Qatar deposited a list of coordinates with the United Nations in 2016 and an
enclosed illustrative map that depicts the maritime boundary between Qatar and Bahrain as
established by the court as the outer limit of Qatar’s maritime zones in relevant areas.

8. Court Interpretations
In terms of its significance for the development of the law of maritime boundary delimitation,
the court’s judgment seemed to affirm the court’s inclination to favor equidistance (or “adjusted
equidistance”) both within and beyond the territorial sea, and with respect to both opposite and
adjacent coasts, accounting for, and giving full effect to, nearly all of the small offshore
features.

The court also made two observations that were significant not only for the law of maritime
boundary delimitation, but also for the international law of the sea more broadly:

 With regard to baselines, the court affirmed that article 7 straight baselines are an
exception to the rule reflected in article 5 (normal baselines) and should be applied
restrictively. It follows that for a non-archipelagic state, unless its coastal geography
meets one of the two geographic criteria set forth in article 7 (namely, that it is deeply
indented and cut into or has a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity),
and meets the other requirements set forth in article 7, its baseline is the low-water line
along the coast, as provided in article 5.
 With regard to low-tide elevations, the court declined to evaluate them with reference
to the rules of international law governing the acquisition of territory. This served as a
foundation for the court’s 2008 conclusion in the Malaysia v. Singapore case that
sovereignty over a low-tide elevation within the overlapping territorial seas of two
states belongs to the state in the territorial sea of which it is located.
While the court’s judgment did contribute in some significant ways as noted above, it failed to
provide any real clarity about what criteria should be used to evaluate whether use of a
particular feature or baseline point would produce a disproportionate effect such that it should
be disregarded in the construction of a maritime boundary. The court’s analysis offered little
in the way of generally applicable guidance that could be carried forward in other maritime
boundary contexts.
 HISTORY 11

9. Laws into Consideration

1. Bahraini Formula- The Parties request the Court to decide any matter of territorial right
or other title or interest which may be a matter of difference between them; and to draw a
single maritime boundary between their respective maritime areas of seabed, subsoil and
superjacent waters.

2. Article 15 of the Hague Convention for the Pacifie Settlement International Disputes
“International arbitration has for its object the settlement of differences between States by
Judges of their own choice on the basis of a respect for law”. This definition emphasises
two elements-
(i) Consent of parties to arbitration; and
(ii) Settlement on the basis of respect for law.
The object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal
without unnecessary delay or expense where the parties should be free to agree how their
disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in public interest.

3. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982- The United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea was adopted in 1982. It lays down a comprehensive regime of law and
order in the world's oceans and seas establishing rules governing all uses of the oceans
and their resources. It embodies in one instrument traditional rules for the uses of the
oceans and at the same time introduces new legal concepts and regimes and addresses
new concerns. The Convention also provides the framework for further development of
specific areas of the law of the sea.
 HISTORY 12

10. Conclusion/Opinion
Overall, the case is a successful example of adjudication-based conflict resolution of a very
complicated, historically tense, and long-running territorial and maritime dispute between two
neighbours. Because, under the principle of "the land dominates the sea," the maritime
boundary could not be resolved without first determining which party had sovereignty over,
and thus was entitled to claim maritime zones from, various contested features, a decision of
this magnitude was only possible because the entire dispute was submitted to the court. Because
the parties argued their territorial sovereignty and marine boundary positions at the same time,
and because each side's boundary position was strongly based on its sovereignty claims, the
court's final boundary line differed significantly from either side's proposed line.
Qatar and Bahrain both made serious efforts to resolve their territorial dispute over the Hawar
Islands. Even though Bahrain wished to maintain the status quo to some extent because it had
effective control over the Hawar Islands and shoals, government officials were aware that they
would not be able to fully benefit from the potential economic gains from oil resources unless
Qatar relinquished its claim to the islands and the dispute was resolved. Similarly, until Bahrain
relinquished its claim to Fasht al-Dibal, Qatar was unable to drill in areas of the North Dome
gas field. The court's decision to recognise Zubarah as Qatari territory also permitted the two
countries to resolve a long-standing dispute over Bahrain's ancestral family's home in Qatar.

The settlement of this territorial dispute serves as an example of how anticipated economic
benefits and projected collaboration on other important problems might persuade contending
governments to seek peaceful resolution through ICJ adjudication. Despite the 1986 crisis and
years of political strain, both Qatar and Bahrain actively sought to resolve the disagreement as
quickly as possible in order to receive enormous economic benefits. Qatar and Bahrain's main
goal during the dispute was to settle it in order to secure economic rewards and allow for
stronger collaboration, which they were able to do through ICJ adjudication.
The International Court of Justice's resolution of the territorial dispute between Qatar and
Bahrain not only put an end to decades of animosity between the two countries and allowed
both to reap the economic benefits expected as a result of the settlement, but it also paved the
way for more regional cooperation, particularly among the GCC states. In a region where oil
reigns supreme and security is precarious, with Iran across the Gulf, rebels in Iraq, and radical
Islamic terrorism a constant danger, Gulf governments must work together bilaterally and
regionally. Finally, bilateral cooperation between Bahrain and Qatar has skyrocketed, and
regional cooperation is far more fruitful than in previous years. The International Court of
Justice's role in the successful resolution of the dispute demonstrates that the court can be an
effective broker of regional peace and beneficial to states involved in territorial disputes in the
Middle East, particularly where economic gains are expected and nationalist or ethnic
attachment to the territory is minimal.
Gulf Cooperation Council, GCC
 HISTORY 13

11. References

1. Kumar, N. Arbitration & Public International Law. Retrieved from

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/660/Arbitration-&-Public-International-
Law.html#:~:text=Article%2015%20of%20the%20Hague%20Convention%20of%20
1899,%28i%29%20Consent%20of%20parties%20to%20arbitration%20%3B%20and
2. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Retrieved from
https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Legal/Pages/UnitedNationsConventionOnTheLaw
OfTheSea.aspx
3. https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/87/7029.pdf