Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain

On 16 March 2001 the ICJ delivered its Judgment in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), the longest in its history. The complex history of the dispute includes that Bahrain and Qatar had concluded exclusive protection agreements with Great Britain in 1892 and 1916 respectively, and that this status of protected States had ended in 1971. The Court further cites the disputes which arose between Bahrain and Qatar on the occasion, inter alia, of the granting of concessions to oil companies, as well as the efforts made to settle those disputes.

The Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain of 1995 poses two main issues to the International Court of Justice: those of admissibility and jurisdiction. Initially, the Court has to decide whether Qatar followed proper procedure by unilaterally admitting the dispute for adjudication. Qatar and Bahrain argue here over the proper method of seisin. Qatar assumes the position that unilateral seisin is proper; one party acting alone may bring the entire dispute. On the other hand, Bahrain argues the Parties must jointly seise the tribunal. Bahrain, arguing joint seisin, maintains the position that the Parties must seise the Court by Special Agreement. This method of seisin enables the Parties, by dual consent, to confer an adjudicatory role upon the Court.

Seisin is a procedural step, independent of the basis of jurisdiction invoked, and is governed by the Statute and Rules of the Court.Bahrain contended that without mutual seisin the Court lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. Mutual, or joint seisin, is the notion that a complementary agreement is a legal prerequisite for seisin of the Court. Qatar's unilateral application premised jurisdiction upon two agreements between the Parties concluded in December 1987 and December 1990. The Court found the letters and Minutes constituted binding international agreements, bringing the Parties within the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. One form of compulsory jurisdiction occurs when States agree to refer certain legal disputes to the Court, and the Court may then exercise its jurisdiction on this basis.  This type of jurisdiction, treaty-based compulsory jurisdiction, obligates a State to accept the Court's jurisdiction over a legal dispute the State expressed in a treaty in force. Article 36(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice references this form of compulsory jurisdiction. The article allows States, in connection with the procedures of Article 40(1), and Article 38(1), to unilaterally bring a dispute under the Court's compulsory jurisdiction when treaties and conventions in force refer cases. A treaty clause referring a dispute between States to the Court is known as a "compromissory clause," and it triggers compulsory jurisdiction. Thus, a "compromissory clause" may bring a case before the Court pursuant to the terms of the treaty between the Parties, which refer to the disputed matters. After deciding that the December 1987, and December 1990 agreements were treaties in force, the Court admitted Qatar's Application based upon them, finding for compulsory jurisdiction. According to the Court's decision, Qatar effectively seised the Court by unilateral application.

In its Judgment on merits, the Court finds that Qatar has sovereignty over Zubarah;  that Bahrain has sovereignty over the Hawar Islands;  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; that Qatar has sovereignty over Janan Island, including Hadd Janan; that Bahrain has sovereignty over the island of Qit'at Jaradah;  that the low-tide elevation of Fasht ad Dibal falls under the sovereignty of Qatar; that the single maritime boundary that divides the various maritime zones of Qatar and Bahrain shall be drawn as indicated in paragraph 250 of the Judgment.

Source: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-53462128.html