Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) - The Court places on record Qatar's decision to disregard disputed documents and extends the time-limit fo

INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE

Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel.(31-70-302 23 23). Cables: Intercourt, The Hague.
Telefax (31-70-3649 28). Telex 32323. Internet address: http: Il www.icj-cij.org

Communiqué
unofficial
for immediale release

No. 99/5
18 February 1999

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain
(Qatar v. Bahrain)

The Court places on record Oatar's decision to disregard disputed documents
and extends the time-limit for the filing of Replies

THE HAGUE, 18 February 1999. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) bas placed on
record the decisionQatar to disregard, for purposes of the case conceming Maritime Delimitation
• and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.n8)documents annexed
to its written pleadings which had been challenged by Bahrain.

In an Order dated 17 February 1999, the Court, taking into account the views of the Parties,
accordingly decided that the Replies yet to be filed by Qatar and by Bahrain would not rely on
these documents.

The Court granted a two-month extension the time-limit for the submission of these
Replies following a request by Qatar,ich Bahrain bad no objectThey have now to be
filed by 30 May 1999.

Qatar's announcement that it would not rely on the disputed documents appeared in the
Interim Report that it submitted on 30 September 1998 within the time-lîmit fixed by the Court's
Order of 30 March 1998. In that report, to which four experts'reports were appended, Qatar stated
on the one band that, on the question of the material authenticity of the documents, there were
differing views not only between the respective expertsarties, but also between its own
experts, and the other that, as far as the historical consistency of the content of those documents
was concerned, the experts thatbad consulted considered that Bahrain's assertions showed
exaggerations and distortiQatar took its decision as to enable the Court ta address the
• meritsf the case without further procedural complications".

The subsequent procedure has been reserved for further decision.

Background information

On 8 July 1991, Qatar filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting
proceedings against Bahrain "in respect of certain existing disputes between them relating to

sovereignty over the Hawar Islsov~re ighs over the shoals of Dîbal and Qit'at Jaradah,
and the delimitation of the maritime areas". These disputes had arisen following decisions taken
by the British Govemment during the timets presence in Bahrain and Qatar (which ended in
1971).

In îts Application, Qatar founded the jurisdictionCourt upon certain agreements
allegedly concluded by the Parties in 1987 aIn July 1991, Bahrain contested the basis of
jurisdiction invoked by Qatar. The President of the Court then decided, after consultations with the
Parties, that the proceedings should first address the issuediction of the Court and the
admissibility the Application .. Written pleadings were exchanged and hearings were held from
28 February to Il March 1994. ~ 2~

On 1 July 1994, the Court delivered a Judgment by which it found that the exchanges of
letters between the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emir of Qatar, dated 19and 21 December 1987,
and between the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emir 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 Affairsf Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were international agreements creating rights
and obligations for the Partieand that by the tennsof those agreements, the Parties bad
undertaken to submit to the Court the whole of their dispute. Having noted that it bad only an
Application from Qatar, the Court decided to afford the Parties the opportunity to submit the whole

of the dispute jointly to it.

On 15 February 1995, the Court delivered a further Judgment by which, in the absence of
an agreement between the Parties to submit the dispute jointly toit, it found that it hadjurisdiction

to adjudicate upon the dispute and that the Application of Qatar (as fonnulated by that State on
30 November 1994 and presented by a separate act) was admissibAccordingly, the dispute
submitted to the Court now includes the following matters: the Hawar Islands, including the island
of Jana; Fasht al Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah; the archipelagic baselines; Zthe areas for

fishing for pearls and for fishing for swimming fish and any other matters connected with maritime
boundaries.

After the filinga Memorial by each of the Parties on 30 September 1996, the President

of the Court fixed 31 December 1997 as time~li fmrtte filing of their Counter-Memorials.
Both were filed within ttime~limit.

By a letter dated 25 September 1997, Bahrain informed the Court that it challenged the

authenticity of 81 documents produced by Qatar as annexes to its Memorial. Accordingly, Bahrain
announced that it would disregard the content of these documents for the purposes of preparing its
Counter~Memo wriahl,ad to be filed by 31 December 1997.

On 8 October 1997, Qatar stated that the objections raised by Bahrain came too late and that
it could not answer them in its Counter-Memorial.

Bahrain then stated that theby Qatar of the challenged documents gave rise to procedural

difficulties that could affect the orderly development ofltobserved that the question of
the authenticity of the said documents was "logically preliminathe determination of its
substantiveffect".

After the filing ofCounter~Mem on23 Dlcember 1997, Bahrain, noting that Qatar •
continued to rely on the challenged documents, again emphasized the need for the .Courtto decide
the question of their authenticity as a preliminary issue.

In view of this, the Court, by an Order of 30 March 1998, directed that each of the Parties
submit a Reply on the merits by 30 March 1999. It also decided that Qatar should file by 30
September 1998 an interim report, to be as comprehensive and specifie as possible, on the question
of the authenticity of each of the disputed documeThe Court specified that Qatar's Reply
should contain its detailed and definitive position on the question and that Bahrain's Reply should

contain its observations on Qatar's interim report.

Website of the Court: http://www.icj-cij.org

Information Office:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, Secretarythe Court (te31-70~3 2326)

Mrs. Laurence Blairon, lnfonnation Officer (tel:0-302 2337)
E-mail address: [email protected]