Non-Corrigé
Uncorrecteci
InternationalCourt Cour internationale
ofJustice deJustice
THEHAGUE LAHAYE
YEAR2000
Publicsitting
held onTuesday30May2000,ut10am., at thePeacePalace,
PresidentGuillaumepresiding
in the caseconcerningMaritimeDelimitationand TerritorialQuestionsbetween
QatarandBahrain (Qatarv. Bahrain)
VERBATIMRECORD
ANNEE 2000
Audiencepublique
tenuelemardi 30 mai 2000,0 heures,au Palais delaPaix,
sous laprésidendeM. Guillaume,président
enI'aflairedelaDélimitationmaritime etdesquestionsterritorialesentre QataretBahreïn
(Qatarc.Bahreïn)
COMPTERENDUPresent: President Guillaume
Vice-President Shi
Judges Oda
Bedjaoui
Ranjeva
Herczegh
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Vereshchetin
Higgins
Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal
Judges ad hoc TorresBemhdez
Fortier
Registrar CouvreurPrésents:M. Guillaume,président
M. Shi, vice-président
MM. Oda
Bedjaoui
Ranjeva
Herczegh
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Vereshchetin
Mme Higgins
MM. Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal,juges
MM. TorresBernitrdez
Fortier,juges ad hoc
M. Couvreur, greffierTheStateof Qataris representedby:
H.E. Dr.Abdullahbin Abdulatif Al-MuslemaniS, ecretary-Generalof theCabinet,
asAgentand Counsel;
Mr.AdelSherbini,LegalAdviser,
Mr. SarniAbushaikha,LegalExpert,
as Counsel;
Mr. EricDavid,Professorof InternationalLaw,Universitélibre deBruxelles,
Dr. AlibinFetaisAl-Meri,Directorof Legal Department,DiwanAmiri,
Mr. Jean-PierreQuéneudec, Professor of International Law at the University of Paris1
(Panthéon-Sorbonne),
MI. Jean Salmon,Professoremeritusof International Law,Université libre deBruxelles,Member
oftheInstitutde droitinternational,
Mr. R.K. P. Shankardass, Senior Advocate, SupremeCourt of India, Former President ofthe
InternationalBarAssociation,
Sir IanSinclair,K.C.M.G.,Q.C.,BarristeratLaw,Memberof theInstitute of InternatiLaw,
SirFrancisVallat, G.B.E.,K.C.M.G.,Q.C.,Professoremeritus ofInternational Law, University of
London,MemberemeritusoftheInstitutdedroitinternational,
Mr. RodmanR. Bundy,Avocat à la Cour d'appel deParis, Memberof the New YorkBar, Frere
Cholmeley/Eversheds,Paris,
MsNanetteE. Pilkington,Avocat àla Courd'appeldeParis,FrereCholmeley/EvershedsP , aris,
as CounselandAdvocates;
Ms CherylDunn,Memberofthe State Bar of California, rereCholmeley/Eversheds,Paris,
Ms InesSabineWilk, Lawyerbefore the German Courtof Appeal, Memberof the Charnberof
Lawyers of Germany,
as Counsel;
Mr. ScottB.Edmonds,Directorof CartographieOperations, MapQuest.com, Columbia, Maryland
(UnitedStatesofAmerica),
Mr. RobertC. Rizmtti, Project Manager,MapQuest.com,Columbia,Maryland (UnitedStates of
America),
Ms Stephanie K.Clark, SeniorCartographer, MapQuest.com, Columbia, Marylan(dUnitedStates
of America),
as Experts;
H.E. SheikhHamadbin JassimbinJaborAl-Thani,MinisterforForeign Affairs,
H.E. Mr.Ahmedbin AbdullahAl-Mahmoud,Minister ofState forForeignAffairs,
as Observers.
TheStateofBahrain is representedby:
H.E.Mr.Jawad SalimAl-Arayed, Minister oS ftateofthe State ofBahrain,
asAgent;L'Etatde Qatarest represéntéepa r
S.Exc.M.Abdullahbin AbdulatifAl-Muslemani,secrétaire généradlugouvernement,
comme agentet conseil;
M. Adel Sherbini, conseillerjuridique,
M. SamiAbushaikha, expertjuridique,
comme conseils;
M. Eric David,professeurde droit internatioàal'universitélibredeBruxelles,
M. Ali binFetaisAl-Meri, directeur des affairesjuridisu conseil del'émir,
M. Jean-Pierre Quéneudec, professeurde droit international à l'université de Paris1
(Panthéon-Sorbonne),
M.Jean Salmon,professeuréméritd eedroitinternational l'université lide Bruxelles,membre
de 1'Institutde droitinternational,
M. R K. P. Shankardass, avocat principaà la Cour suprêmede l'Inde, ancien présidentde
l'Associationinternationale du Barreau,
SirIan Sinclair,K.C.M.G.,Q.C.,avocat,membredel'Institut de droiinternational,
Sir Francis Vallat,G.B.E.,K.C.M.G.,Q.C.,professeurémérite dedroitinternationaà l'université
de Londres,membre honoraire de l'Institut eroitinternational,
M. RodmanR. Bundy, avocat àla Courd'appel deParis,membredubarreau deNew York,cabinet
FrereCholmeley/Eversheds,Paris,
Mlle Nanette Pilkington,avocatà la Courd'appelde Paris, cabinet FrereCholmeley/Eversheds,
Paris,
comme conseilset avocats;
Mme Cheryl Dunn, membre du barreau de lYEtat de Californie, cabinet Frere
Cholmeley/Eversheds,Paris,
Mme Inès SabineWilk, avocat prèsd'unecour d'appeld'Allemagne,membrede la chambre des
avocatsd'Allemagne,
comme conseils;
M. Scott B. Edmonds, directeurdu service des levéscartographiques, société MapQuest.com,
Columbia,Maryland (Etats-Unis d'Amérique),
M. Robert C. Rizzutti, administrateur de projet, société MapQuest.com, ColumbiM a,aryland
(Etats-Unis d'Amérique),
Mme Stephanie K. Clark, cartographehors classe, société MapQuest.comC,olumbia, Maryland
(Etats-Unisd'Amérique),
comme experts;
S.Exc.le cheikhHamad bin JassimbinJaborAl-Thani,ministredesaffairesétrangères,
S. Exc.M.Ahmedbin AbdullahAl-Mahmoud,ministredYEtatauxaffairesétrangères,
comme observateurs.
L'Etatde Bahreïn estrepresentépar :
S.Exc.M.Jawad Salim Al-Arayed,ministre d7EtatdelYEtatde Bahrein,
comme agent;Dr.FathiKemicha,MemberoftheBarof Paris,Kemicha& Associés (Tunis),
Professor SirElihuLauterpacht,Q.C.,C.B.E., HonoraryProfessor of theUniversityof Cambridge,
MemberoftheInstitut dedroit international,
Mr.Jan Paulsson,Freshfields,Paris,MemberoftheBarsof ParisandtheDistrictof Columbia,
Professor Michael Reisman, Myres S. McDougal Professor of InternationalLaw of Yale Law
School,Memberof theBarofConnecticut, Associateofthe Institutdedroit international,
Mr.Robert Volterra,Freshfields,London,Member of theBar ofUpperCanada,
ProfessorProsperWeil,Emeritus Professor attheUniversity of ParisII (Panthéon-Assas)M, ember
of the Académiedes sciences moraleset politiques (Institut de Franc, ember of the Institut
de droitinternational,
as Counsel andAdvocates;
SheikhKhalidbin Ahmed Al-Khalifa,First Secretary,Ministryof ForeignAffairs of the Stateof
Bahrain,
Commander Christopher CarletonM , .B.E., Headof the Law of theSea Division of the United
KingdomKydrographicOffice,
Dr.HongwuChen,Freshfields,Paris,Member oftheBarsof Paris andBeijing,
Mr.Graham Coop,Freshfields,Paris,Barxisterand Solicitorofthe HighCourt ofNew Zealandand
Solicitorofthe SupremeCourtof Englandand Wales,
Mr.AndrewNewcombe, Freshfields, Paris, Membeo rftheBar of BritishColumbia,
Dr.BethOlsen,Advisor,Ministryof State ofthe StateofBahrain,
Dr. John Wilkinson,Former Reader atthe University of Oxford, Emeritus Fellow, St.Hugh's
College,Oxford,
asAdvisors;
H.E.SheikhMohammedbin MubarakAl Khalifa, MinisterforForeignAffairs, StateofBahrain,
H.E. Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Mubarak Al Khalifa, Ambassador of the State of Bahrain to the
Netherlands,
H.E.Dr.MohammedJaberAl-Ansari,Advisorto HisHighness,theAmirof Bahrain,
Mr.GhaziAl-Gosaibi,Under-SecretaryofForeign Affairs,StateofBahrain,
Her Excellency Sheikha Haya Al Khalifa, Ambassador ofthe State of Bahrain to the French
Republic,
Mr. YousefMahrnood,Directorof the Office oftheForeignMinister,Stateof Bahrain,
as Observers;
Mr. JonAddison,MinistryofStateofthe Stateof Bahrain,
Ms Maisoon Al-Arayed, Ministry ofStateof the State of Bahrain,
Mr.Nabeel Al-Rumaihi, Ministry of Statoef the StateofBahrain,
Mr.HafedhAl-Qassab,Ministry of State ofthe StateofBahrain,
MsAneesaHanna,EmbassyofBahrainin London,
MsJeanetteHarding,Ministryof Stateofthe StateofBahrain,
MsVanessaHarris,Freshfields,
MsIva Kratchanova,Ministryof State ofthe Stateof Bahrain,
Ms SonjaKnijnsberg,Freshfields,
Mr. Kevin Mottram,Freshfields,
Mr.YasserShaheen,SecondSecretary,Ministry of Foreign AffairsoftheStateof Bahrain,
asAdministrativeStaffM.Fathi Kemicha,membre dubarreaude Paris, cabinet Kemicha & Associés, Tunis,
Sir Elihu Lauterpacht,Q.C., C.B.E.,professeur honorairà l'universitéde Cambridge,membrede
l'Institutde droitinternational,
M.Jan Paulsson, cabinet Freshfields, Paris, membre des barreaux de Paris et du district de
Columbia,
M. MichaelReisman,professeurde droit internationala l'universitéde Yale, titulaire de la chaire
Myres S.McDougal, membre du barreau du Connecticut, associé de l'Institut de droit
international,
M. RobertVolterra,cabinetFreshfields,Londres, membredubarreau du Haut Canada,
M. Prosper Weil, professeur éméritea l'université deParisII (Panthéon-Assas), membrede
l'Académiedes sciencesmoralesetpolitiques(Institutde France),membre del'Institutde droit
international,
commeconseils etavocats;
Le cheikh Khalidbin Ahmed Al-Khalifa, premiersecrétaire, ministère desaffaires étrangères de
1'Etatde Bahreïn,
Le capitaine defrégateChristopherCarleton, M.B.E., directeur dela division du droit maritimedu
bureau hydrographiquedu Royaume-Uni,
M. HongwuChen,cabinetFreshfields,Paris,membredesbarreauxde Paris et de Beijing,
M. Graham Coop, cabinet Freshfields, Paris, avocat et conseil de la High Court de
Nouvelle-Zélandeet conseillerdela Cour suprêmed'Angleterre et du Pays de Galles,
M. AndrewNewcombe,cabinetFreshfields,Paris, membre du barreaude la Colombiebritannique,
Mme Beth Olsen,conseiller,ministèredYEtatde 1'Etatde Bahreïn,
M. John Wilkinson, ancien maître de conférencea l'université d'Oxford, membre éméritedu
CollègeSaintHugh, Oxford,
commeconseillers;
S. Exc. le cheikhMohammedbin MubarakAl Khalifa, ministredes affairesétrangères de Bahreïn,
S. Exc. le cheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Mubarak Al Khalifa, ambassadeur de 1'Etatde Bahreïn aux
Pays-Bas,
S.Exc. M. MohammedJaberAl-Ansari,conseillerde SonAltessel'émirde Bahreïn,
M. GhaziAl-Gosaibi, sous-secrétaired'Etatauxaffairesétrangèresde1'Etatde Bahreïn,
S. Exc. la cheikha Haya Al Khalifa, ambassadeur de1'Etatde Bahreïn auprès dela République
française,
M. YousefMahmood,directeurdubureauduministredes affairesétrangères de Bahreïn,
commeobservateurs;
M. Jon Addison,ministèredYEtatde1'Etatde Bahreïn,
MmeMaisoonAl-Arayed, ministèredYEtatde 1'Etatde Bahreïn,
M.Nabeel Al-Rumaihi,ministèred'Etatde 1'Etatde Bahreïn,
M. Hafedh Al-Qassab,ministèred'Etatde 1'Etatde Bahreïn,
Mme AneesaHanna,ambassadedeBahreïn, Londres,
MmeJeanetteHarding, ministèred'Etatde 1'Etatde Bahre'in,
MmeVanessaHarris, cabinet Freshfields,
MmeIva Kratchanova,ministèred3Etatde 1'Etatde Bahreïn,
Mme SonjaKnijnsberg,cabinetFreshfields,
M. KevinMottram,cabinetFreshfields,
M. YasserShaheen,second secrétaire,ministère des affairesétrangèresde1'Etatde Bahreïn,
commepersonneladministratif: Le PRESIDENT :Veuillez vous asseoir. La séanceest ouverte et je donne la parole au
Dr.Ali bin FetaisAl-Meri pour 1'Etatde Qatar. Vousavezlaparole. Youhavethe floor.
M. AL-MERI :
B.L'ORGANISATI O NL'ADMINISTRATIONOTTOMANEA QATAR
MonsieurlePrésident,Madameet Messieursde la Cour,
1.Introduction
1. Le conseil qui m'a précédé a expliqué la manière do'etntitépolitique de Qatars'est
progressivement créée, sous leouvernement des Al-Thani,pour s'étendre sur l'intégraée la
péninsulede Qatar au cours de la seconde moitiéduXIXe siècle. La présencedes Ottomans à
Qatar,entre 1871et le début dela premièreguerre mondiale, constitueun des éléments importants
de l'histoire de Qatar pendantcette période. Comme je tâcherai de le démontrer, cette présence
ottomanea confirmél'intégntéterritorialede Qatar,en tantqu'entitédistincte.
2. Pour unebonne compréhensionde la manière dontles Ottomansexerçaient leur autoràté
Qatar, il faut d'abord savoircommentétaitorganisée l'administration ottoeans la régiondu
Golfe. Les documents de l'époquequi se trouvent dans les archives ottomanes, y compris les
cartesdresséespar les Ottomansvers la fin duXIXesiècleet au débutXXe siècle,nousmontrent
que les Ottomans considéraientQatar comme un district administratif sépaet distinct, et que
-contrairement aux thèsesavancéespar Bahreïn - ce districtn'était passimplementlimitéaux
environs de Doha, mais s'étendait sur l'intégralitée péninsule de Qatar,y compris les îles
Hawar.
II. La naturedel'administrationottomanedans la région
L
3. Les Ottomans exerçaient leur autoritédans la partie nord du Golfe par le biais d'une
structurecomplexe,comportantune hiérarchied'unitéasdministratives.Ces unitéscorrespondaient
-.
à desprovinces,des sous-provinces,des districtset des villes.
4. Au sommet de cette structure administrative se trouvait la province ou vilayet de
Bassorah, où les Ottomans avaient établi leurcapitale administrative régionale. Le vilayet deBassorahétaitgouvernéparun officierappelévali. Levilayetde Bassorahétaitlui-même diviséen
quatre sous-provinces,ousanjaks. Il s'agissaitdessanjaks de Bassorah, de Muntefîk,de Ammara
et de Hasa (ou de Nejd). Chacundecessanjaks étaitgouvernépar un officierappelémutassariJ
5.A leur tour, lessanjaks étaientdivisésn districts,oukazas, lesquelsétaientgouvernéspar
un gouverneurlocal, appelé kaimakam.Le kaimakamétablissait habituellementsa résidencedans
la ville principale dukaza et cette villeétaitappeléesaba. Le kaza, pour sa part, étaitdiviséen
unités administrativesplus petites, ou nahiyes, qui pouvaient comprendre plusieurs villesou
villagesfioys).
6. Cette structure permettaitun certainniveau de centralisationde l'administrationottomane,
lesmutasarrifs et kaimakamslocauxétantsubordonnésau vali du vilayet. Enréalitéc ,ependant,il
existaitun haut degré d'autonomie au niveaudu kaza, et il n'étaitpas inhabituelqu'un kaimakam
gouverne demanièretrèsautonomeouquasiindépendante,comme cela étalie t cas pour Qatar.
7. Il a déjàétédit que les Ottomansavaient nommé lecheikh Jassim bin Thani de Qatar en
tant que kaimakamdu kazade Qatar. Les documentsnousmontrent que le cheikh Jassim,tout en
professant une allégeancenominaleaux Ottomans eten tolérantune présencemilitaire ottomane à
Qatar, agissait de temps en temps de manière indépendantd eans la péninsule,et se méfiait des
intentionsdes Ottomans.
III. L'étendue dukaza, ou district,de Qatar
8. Afin que la Cour puisse visualiserla structure administrativequeje viens de décrire,il
convientde regarderquelques cartesde larégion, dressées par les Ottomans àl'époqueconcernée.
Ces cartes illustrent trois choses. Tout d'abord,elles illustrenttrèsclairement la hiérarchie entre
les vilayets,les sanjaks, les kazas et les kasabas. Ensuite, elles démontrent, au-de tout doute
possible, que, contrairementà ce que prétendBahreïn, le kaza ou district de Qatar s'étendaitsur
l'intégralité dla péninsulede Qatar. Enfin, elles nous montrentque les Ottomans considéraient
que Bahreïn, sur lequel ils se prétendaientsuzerains, mais quiétaiten fait acceptécomme étant
gouverné parles cheikhslocaux, se limitaitaux îles principales de Bahrein,à l'exclusion desîles
Hawar.
[Afficherà l'écran la carteno35 del'Atlas] 9. J'aifaitafficher àl'écran ucarte extraitede l'Atlasde Qatar (le no33, qui a été dressée
par les Ottomansvers la fin du XIXe siècleet qui représentele vilayet de Bassorah. Le vilayet
entieresttracé surla carte, et estcoloriéenrose pâle [indiquerla carte].
10. Les quatre sanjab que comportaitle vilayet sont égalementénumérés sulra carte [les
indiquer sur lacarte]. Tout d'abord,il y avait lesanjakde Bassorah lui-mêmeq,ui comprenaitla
région entourantla ville de Bassorah. Au nord etl'ouest de Bassorahétait lesanjakde Muntefik.
A l'est de Bassorahet formant lafrontièreavec l'Iran,se trouvaitle sanjakde Ammara. Et au sud
était leplus granddes quatre,leanjakde Hasa ou deNejd, dont lacapitale provinciale se trouvait
à Al-Hufuf.
11. Pour les besoins de laprésente affaire, c'estle sanjakde Nejd qui est le plus pertinent.
Commeje l'ai déjà indiquéc,e sanjakétait diviséen kazas ou districts, dont l'un étaitle kazade
Qatar.
12. En outre, la Cour remarquera égalementque les îles de Bahreïn sont elles-mêmes
indiquées de manière distincte sulra cartediquersurla carte]. On peut aisémentconstaterque
lesîles deBahreïn,telles qu'elles sont indiquéeseimitentàl'île principalede Bahreïnet auxîles
tout près de ses côtes, comme Muharraq [indiquer]. Ni Zubarah, ni les îles Hawar, qui font
pratiquement partie de la côte de Qatar[indiquer],ne-sont indiquéescomme faisant partie de
Bahreïn. A la différence de Qatar, et en raison sans doute de ses liens étroits avec la
Grande-Bretagne,Bahreïn n'était pasconsidérécommeun kazadistinct.
[Afficherà l'écranla carteno15 del'Atlas]
13.L'étenduedu kazade Qatar ressorttrèsclairement decette deuxième carteottomane de
la région,qui vientd'êtreaffichéel'écran.Il s'agitde lacarteno 15de l'Atlasde Qatar.
14.La Cour constatera de nouveau quele sanjakde Nejd est indiqué surla carte. Si nous
regardons Qatar,nous voyons quele kazade Qatar estégalementindiqué de manièretrès claire,le
*
nom «Qatan>recouvrantune bonnepartie de la péninsule de Qatar. La carte ne laisse aucundoute
quantau faitquele kaza a été considécrommeenglobanttoute lapéninsule.
15.En revanche, le kasabade Qatar, lacapitaledu district,est traité sur la carte demanière
toutà fait différente.Il n'était pas inhabituel qu'une capdee district porte le mêmenom que le
kaza lui-même -comme par exemple Koweït. En conséquence, lacarte indique non seulementlekaza de Qatar mais également la ville de Qatar. Si nous regardons l'encart au bas de la carte
[l'indiquer sur la carte], nousvoyons que la ville de Qatarest indiquée trèsdistinctement comme
constituantle kasaba de Qatar.
16.Cettecartecontredittotalement la thèse de Bahreïn,selon laquelleQatarn'étaitconstitué
que par la ville d'Al-Bida et ses environs. Ce à quoi Bahreïn se réfèrecomme constituanttoute
l'étenduede Qatar n'était,tout simplement, que la capitale de district, ou kasaba, de Qatar.
Comme l'indique la carte, le kaza de Qatar était beaucoup plusétendu,et recouvrait toute la
péninsule.
17. Les informations figurant sur la carte sont confirméespar les documents ottomans
eux-mêmes. Par exemple, il existe un rapport interne ottoman, daté de1895, soit la date
approximative de cette carte, et adresséau Grand Vizir. Ce rapport décrit Qatar comme suit :
((L'endroit appeléQatar, sur la côtà centmilles de la garnisond'Ojair, est commeune languequi
seprojettedanslamer entre Oman etl'île de ~ahreïn.))'
18. Cette description démontreque les Ottomans considéraient que Qatar recouvrait la
péninsule entière, oula «langue» de terre décrite dans ledocument. Le même rapportindique
ensuite que:
«La quasi-totalitéde la population est occupéeà la pêche despoissons et des
perles, et les gens ont également une activité commerciale et de navigation. Le
nombre de leurs bateaux varie entre cinqet six cents ...Le centre administratif dece
kaza est le kasaba d'Al-Bida. Le kasaba d'Al-Bida comporte quelque
deuxmille cinqcent maisons construites de pierre et de chaux. Il comporte
onze villages,situés surlacôte.)?
19.Une foisencore, la Couraura vu que les Ottomansfaisaientune distinctionentre le kaza
de Qatar, recouvranttoute lapéninsule,et le kasaba de Qatar,lequel comporteonzevillagesautour
de la ville d'Al-Bida. Si nous regardonsde nouveau la carte,nous voyons qu'un certain nombre
d'autres villages sont indiqués comme faisant partie du kaza de Qatar. Entre autres, il s'agit,
notamment, de Zubarah [l'indiquer sur la carte], qui a été considéré san aucun doute comme
faisant partie du kaza, et ainsi commeétant en-dehorsdes domaines de Bahreïn. Ces pointsont
'~é~li~uedeQatar,annexe11.4vol.2,p.253
'lbid.égalementété confirmé psr un spécialistede l'histoireottomane,le Dr. Zekenya Kursun, dansson
rapportjoint àla répliquede ~atar~.
20. Bahreïn lui-mêmea fourni des confirmations complémentairesde la structure i
administrativeottomane,dans les documentsqu'il aversésaux débats. Ainsi,en annexe 25 b) au
contre-mémoire de Bahreïn,figure un rapport ottoman sur Qatar, datant de 1893, lequel fait une
distinction très nette entre le territoire duaza de Qatar et la capitale de district de Qatar ou
d'Al-Bida. Comme l'indique ce rapport, les Ottomans voulaient s'assurerde «l'établissement
completde la sécuritéed te latranquillitédanstoutes lespartiesdukaza)?.
21. En outre, en annexe35 b) au contre-mémoirede Bahre'ïn,il y a un nouveau rapport
ottoman de 1909, lequelindique que: «Les districts deZubareet d7Udeydsont des prolongements
de la sous-division de Katar de la province deNejd, et ils occupent des situations importantes.))
(P. 113.)
IV.Conclusions
22. En conclusion,Monsieur le président, Madameet Messieurs de la Cour, les documents
ottomans de l'époquesont enparfaite conformitéavec les autresdocuments quiont été traitéspar
Mlle Pilkington. Comme ces derniers, ils confirmaient l'intégrité temtonale de Qatar, en tant
qu'entitépolitique, comprenanttoute la péninsulede Qatar. Ils sont également conformesà la
cartographie qui sera traitée plus tardpar M. Bundy. En conséquence,les arguments de Bahreïn
quant à l'étenduelimitéede Qatar vers la findu XIXesiècleet au débutdu XXesiècle,sont sans
aucun fondement,et doiventêtrerejetée sntotalité.
Je remercie la Cour de son attention, et vous prie, Monsieurle président,de bien vouloir
donner la parole àM. Shankardass.
Le PRESIDENT :Je vous remercie beaucoup, Dr.Alibin Fetais Al-Men. Now 1give the
*
floorto Mr. Shankardass.
3~nnexe11.75,vol.2,p. 531
4~ontre-mémoirede Bahreïn, annexe25 b),vol.2,p. 73, les italiquessontde nous. MR.SHANKARDASS:
LIMITED EXTENTOF BAHRAI N NDTHE IMPACT OFOIL CONCESSIONS
ON QATA-AHRAIN TERRITORIES
Mr. President,anddistinguishedMembersofthe Court:
May 1Sayit is a great honourand indeeda privilege to appearbefore this Courtagain andto
representthe State of Qatar.
1. My learned colleague,Ms Nanette Pilkington,presented to you yesterday the history of
the territorialscope and integrity of Qatarup to a few years afterthe Anglo-Qatar Treaty of 1916.
My tasktodayis to addressyoufirst,onthe territorialextentof Bahrainfor approximatelythe same
period; and thereafter, to demonstratetoyou theimpactof oil concessionnegotiationsof the 1920s
andthe 1930son what wereto be regardedas the Sheikhdomsof bothQatarand Bahrain.
2. Asto thextentof Bahrain,1wouldliketo begin,if 1may,by refemng to Bahrain's effort,
in its pleadings, to present an image ofitself as a historical entitycomprisingnotmpact
group of the Bahrain islands, but also including extensivetracts of territory on the Arabian
mainland. Thus,Bahrainclaimsthat "theQatar peninsula, alongwiththe Hasa oases,was part of a
major geographicaland socio-economicunitnownto historians,we aretold, as Greater~ahrain"';
and furthemore, that it exercised authorityand control over al1the waters between the Bahrain
main Island andthe Zubarah coast2. Bahrain has producedno credible evidence to support any
such idea of a Greater Bahrain. Al1that we have seen is ColonelLapie'sFrench map of 1838
includedin Bahrain'semorial~. Eventhis map is in no sense evidenceof any political entity of a
greaterBahraincoveringthe extensiveareamarkedon themap.
3. Qatar does not dispute that the narne "Bahrain" was atone time used as a geographical
description covering different partsof the Arabian mainland together with the Bahrain groupof
islands.
The Court willrecall the statement reproduced in Qatar's Replyof the present Emir of
Bahrain when, writing in 1994he stated thatfrom themiddleof the thirteenthcenturythe name
'~ounter-MemonalofBahrain,para.32.
2~emonal of Bahrain,paras. 16-17.
3~emonal of Bahrain,mapfacingp. 5andpara. 16.
4~eplyof Qatar,Ann.II.79,Vol. 2,p. 555."Bahrain" hasbeen applied"more specificallytothegroup of islandsnow knownas Bahrain". He
also points out that theentire area continued to be loosely referred to as "Bahrain"for centuries
afterwards.
4. Bahrain howeverclaims in its Memorial that the Stateof Bahrain today consists of "an
archipelagowhich includesmore than 50islands,low-tideelevationsand shoals .. ,the territoryon
the north-west Coastof the Qatar peninsulareferred to as the Zubarah region"and of course "the
HawarIslands group"S.
5. My effort will be to show, on the contrary, that the extent of Bahrainhas in fact been
limitedfor a longtime to what the Emir of Bahrain describes as "thegroup of islands now known
as Bahrain" and to demonstrate how this description has been historically and universally
understood. 1propose to do this by analysingthe position bnefly before the Agreementsof 1868
and, insomewhat greaterdetail,afterthat date.
The positionbefore 1868
6. As to the position before 1868, Qatar has already show in its pleadings6,that the
Al-Khalifah occupationof Bahrain in 1783was followed by a conhsed periodup to 1820when
strugglefor control overthe islands,by Muscat, Wahhabis andPersia wereoccuning. Even in the
years after 1820,as Lorimer points out7,and as Dr. Al Baharnaof Bahrain confms8, the intemal
situation in Bahrain during the first half of the nineteenthcentury was highly unstable with the
towns in a state of min and decay, the six sons of the Sheikhpretending to exerciseseparateand
independentpowerandtheongoing dynasticquarrelsbetweentheSheikhs.
7. Lorimer further recordsg that towards the end of the year 1859,in view of another
Wahhabithreat, Sheikh Mohamedof Bahrainmade simultaneous applicationsfor protection to the
Persiansand to the TurkishWali of Baghdad. It is in this contextthat a BritishReport, now filed
'MemonalofBahrain,paras.42-43.
6~ernorialof Qatar,paras3.to3.29; Replyof Qatar, para.3.10.
'Mernonalof QatarAnn. 11.5,Vol.3,p. 265.
8~eplyof Qatar, Ann.11.76,Vol. 2,p. 545.
9~emorialof Qatar,Ann.IL5,Vol.3,p. 295.by Bahrain, points out that "Bahrain once hoisted in succession Turkish, Persian and English
flags"; and goesonto Saythat "shehas beenknownto hoist al1three atonce"I0.
8. 1mention these events merely to indicate that during the whole period after 1783when
Bahrain claims the Al-Khalifah Sheikhs were exercising sovereign authority or dominance
throughout Qatar, the Al-Khalifah were hardly themselves stable in the Bahrain islands or
independent ofotherpowers.
9. The problemof Bahrain'sinstabilitywas only resolvedwith the British decisionof 1861
that the tranquillity of the Persian Gulf seemed to demand that Bahrain shouldbe regarded as
subject neither toTurkey nor to Persia; and that its independence mustbe recognizedl'. In the
sarneyear, Bahrainwas also engagedin whatthe British PoliticalResidentconsidered "aggression
on the Coastof [its] neighbours" and he arrived in Bahrain in May 1861 determined"stemly to
control" Bahrain'sactivities and to see what he could do to preserve the maritime tranquillity
which, he declared,was being openly endangeredby the Shaikh of ~ahrain'~. These were the
eventswhich ledto the Anglo-BahrainTreaty of 1861,whereby Bahrainundertookto abstainfrom
al1maritimeaggressionof everykind,in return for British protectionforthe securityof ~ahrain'~.
10.While the British action in 1861might have helped stabilize Bahrain's situation to some
extent, as the Court will have seen, this did not stop the Al-Khalifah undertaking aggressive
activities across the sea against Qatar in 1867 and 1868 until they were finally punished and
prohibitedby theBritishfrom ever doingso againunderthe 1868Agreements.
Thepositionafter1868
11.Tumingnow, if 1may, Mr. President, totheposition after 1868,I wouldlike to drawthe
Court'sattention to the nurnerous occasions set out in some detail in Qatar'spleadings'4when
Bahrain was describedas being limitedto a group of close islandsand none of these descriptions
'o~upplementalDocumentsof Bahrain,Ann. 1,p. 26.
"Memonal ofQatar, Ann.11.5,Vol. 3,p. 295.
'2~emorialof Qatar,para. 5.3; Mernorialof Qatar,An, ol. 6,p. 27.
"Memonal of Qatar,paras. 5.3-5.4; MernorialofQatar, An, ol.6,p. 31.
I4~eplyof Qatar,paras 3.23-3.36.includedany partofthe Qatarpeninsulaor the Hawar Islands; 1will onlybnefly referto someof
the important ones.
i
12. The Court will recallthat Bahrain was occupiedin the sixteenth century by the
Portuguese and thereafter between1622and 1783by Persia and thatthe Persians continuedto
claim sovereignty over Bahrainright up until 1970when the issue was ultimatelyresolvedas a
result of the Shah ofPersia'sannouncementthat "the island'sinhabitantswere welcometo decide
theirownfate'"'.
13. During the entire penod when the Persian claimwas being pressed, particularlyfrom
1886onwards,Bahrainwas alwaysreferredto either as"oneisland"or "anisland State, consisting
of five islands" or"a group of onelarge andfour smallis~ands"'~.There are ten Persianmaps in
Qatar's MapAtlas,fromMapNo. 89onwards, showing Bahrainas part of Persiaandeach of them
shows only themain Bahrain Island andits adjoining islandsas Persiantemtory. None of them
includetheHawarIslandsor Zubarah. Todemonstratethisposition,may 1showtheCourtjust two
out of the fourofficia1Persianmaps: first, a1950mapofthe GeographicDepartment ofthe Army
[mapNo. 89 nowon the screen]; and second, a 1965 mapof the NationalIranianOil Company
[mapNo. 94 now on the screen],bothshowing onlythe Bahrain mainisland and itsirnmediately
adjoiningislandsaspartof Iran.
14.Next,a description ofBahrainin 1931in the officialpublicationof the TurkishMinistry
of ForeignAffairs, echoeswhat the Emirof Bahrainhas told us, and States: "In the past,al-Hasa
and Qatarwere includedunderthenameBahrain,buttoday, Bahrainrefers onlyto a groupof five
islands"" (whichare thennamed).
15.Contraryto Bahrain'sdescriptionof the "StateofBahrain",al1othersignificanthistorical
referencesto or descriptionsof "Bahrain"after 1868,whichQatarhas listed in its~e~l~'*s ,peci@
only the main Bahrain island and its irnmediatelyneighbounngislands as constituting Bahrain.
\
These include two official British Reports of 1874 and 1880, a study presented to the Royal
"~e~ly of Qatar,para. 3.25.
16Replyof Qatar, paras.3.23to 3.35.
''Replyof Qatar, Ann.11.87,Vol.2,p.625; Reply of Qatar, Ann11-88,Vol. 2, p. 631. These are named as:
"(1)Bahrain ...(2)Moharrek,(3)UmmNa'san,(4) Sitra,(5)Nabi Salih".
lS~eplyof Qatar, para.3.31and related annexes.GeographicalSociety in 1889byJ. TheodoreBentwith an importantrnapreflectinghis description
of Bahrain [map No. 12 which is now on the screen], a Report of 1902 by the German
Ambassador to Persia and, most importantly, Lorimer's description of Bahrain in 1908 as
consistingof:
"the archipelago formed by the Bahrain, Muharraq, Umm Na'asan, Sitrah and Nabi
Salih islands and by a number of lesser islets and rocks ... taken al1together these
form a compactgroup almost inthe middle of the gulf which divides the promontory
of Qatar from theCoastof ~atif 'lg.
16. To return brieflyto Bent'srnap still on the screen, 1would like to stress that this rnap
published in 1890 is representative of a broad spectrum of maps prepared throughout the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,al1of which depictedBahrain in the same way and, in
Qatar'ssubmission,this rnapstill substantiallyshowsthe extentof Bahraintoday.
17. Lorimer'sdescription of the extent of "Bahrain", which 1 have just read out, was
thereafter consistently adopted by British authorities, for example, in the 1916 Handbook of
Arabia, an India OMiceReport of 1928; a British Military Report of 1933, which is annexedto
Bahrain's own~emorial'~and in IndiaOffice and PoliticalResidencycorrespondenceof 1933and
1934to which 1will have occasionto refer shortlywhen dealingwith the oil concessionhistoryof
the 1930s.
18.The Court will therefore seethat in additionto the Persian,Turkish, German and earlier
British descriptionsof 1874, 1880 and 1889,al1descriptions of Bahrain in British records from
1908to 1934are also virtuallyidenticaland clearly demonstratethat "Bahrain"during that period
was regarded by the British as comprised only of the five named islands. Added to al1this
evidence are the numerous maps that my leamed friend Mr.Bundy will address which similarly
show "Bahrain" as consisting of a group of islands. 1, for my part, would invite the Court's
particular attentiontojust two of the maps, as they are officialBritish maps, and thereforeof high
evidentiaryvalue:
(i) First, a portion of theAdrniralty Chart No. 748-B of 1917 [map No. 58 now on the
screen] showing a red line within which lies the Arabian peninsula. This map, which
'9~emonal of QataAnn.11.3,Vol. 3,p. 88.
20~ernonalof Bahrain,Ann.330,Vol. 6,p. 1446. Mr.Bundy will analyse, shows "Bahrain" specificallymarked by a circle enclosingthe
sarnecompactgroupof islands; and
*
(ii) Second,a WarOfficemap of 1924with annotationsby the Foreign Office madein 1933,
whichthe Courtwill nowseeon the screen [mapNo. 771. As Qatarhas shown,thismap
was annotatedby Mr.G.W. (laterSirGeorge)Rende1in connectionwith aMemorandum
in the context of aproposa1to the British Cabinet thatthe dutiesinregard toPersianGulf
States,shouldbe transferredfromtheColonial Officeto theForeignoffice2';
Rendel'sannotationson the map depictedthe contemporaryviewofthe ForeignOffice in
1933 and set out the limits of each of the political entities in the Gulf region. With
respectto Qatar,Rende1left no doubtthat it encompassed theentirepeninsulaobviously
including Zubarah. Bahrain,in contrast, was indicatedas falling withinthe blue line on
the map and its territorial extent limited to the compact groupof islands describedby
Lorimer. In accordancewithBritish viewswhichQatar has shownwere expressedand
prevailed between1933and 1936, the Hawar Islandswere obviously excludedfromthe
limitsof Bahrainandincludedwithinthe limitsofQatar.
19.Important evidencemorerecently researched,confirmingthat Bahrainconsisted onlyof
the group of islands 1have mentioned,is providedby the EnglishAdviserto the Governmentof
Bahrain,Charles (later Sir Charles)Belgravehimself. In anarticle- a copy of which is in the
judges'folders - publishedin theJournalof the CentralAsianSocieîy in 1928 - two years after
he hadtakenup hisofficialposition - Belgravedescnbedthe Bahrain archipelago as consistingof
"a group of small islandsabout seventeenmiles off the Arab Coasthalf-waydown the Persian
~ulf'~'. His detaileddescriptionofthe islandsmakesnomention whatsoever of Hawar orf,or that
matter,ofZubarah.
20.Hadthe HawarIslandsbeenregardedaspart oftheprincipalityof "Bahrain"in 1928,the .
main HawarIsland(JaziratHawar) wouldhavebeen the secondlargestin the group, and specific
attention would certainlyhavebeendirectedto it by Belgravehimself inhis detailed descriptionof
the islands constitutingBahrain.
Z'~eplyof Qata, nn.11.58,Vol.2,p. 335.
22~eplyof Qata, M. 11.81,Vol.2,p. 570. 21. Finally, even in 1970,when a representative of the United Nations Secretary-General
visited Bahrainto ascertainthe wishesof its peopleonthe issueof the Persian claimto Bahrain,his
Report ofthat year - a copy ofthe excerpt is in thejudges'folders- described Bahrainin almost
the sarne ternis as Lorimer and observed: "Onlyfive islands are inhabited but nearly al1the
population liveson tl~ree."'~Even in this Report, there is no mention whatsoever ofHawar or
Zubarah.
22. The Court will thereforesee that contraryto Bahrain's descriptionof its temtones in its
pleadings, fordecades, if not for at leastacentury,the entity referredto by the Emir of Bahrainas
"thegroupof islandsnow knownas Bahrain" clearlymeantthe compact group ofislandswhichmy
leamed fiiend, Professor Salmon, showedyou onBent's1890map yesterday,andwhichhave been
specificallynarnedfromtimeto time.
Oilconcessionof the1930sand the territorialextentofQatarandBahrain
23. Let me now turn to the events followingefforts in the 1920sand 1930stodiscoverand
later produce oil which further confirm the extent of the territories of Bahrain and Qatar as
describedby Qatar in itspleadings.
24. In view of the prospects for the discovery of oilin the area, negotiations beganin the
1920sbetweenprospectiveoil concessionairesandthe Rulersofthe Gulf Sheikhdoms.
25. Bahrain,by virtue of anundertakingof May 191424,and Qatarunder the 1916 ~reap,
had agreed with the British Govenunent not to grant any oil concession overtheir temtories to
anyone without British consent. As noted by a senior British ~fficial~~a,lthough none of their
treaties with thetwo Sheikhdomsentitledthe Britishto make binding boundary determinationsof
their temtones withoutthe consent ofthe Rulers, forthe purposeof the oil concessions,the British,
before giving their required consent, had to ensure that the proposed concessions laywithin the
temtories of eachSheikhdom.
')united Nations SecurityCouncilDoc. SI9772of 30Apnl 1970.
24~emorialof Bahrain,para. 235; MernorialofBahrain,Ann.94, Vol.3,p. 552.
25~emorialof Qatar,Ann.11.47,Vol. 5,p. 181.
26~upplemental ocumentsofQatar,doc. 17,p. 116. 26. Before1discussthe Qatar andBahrain oil concessionsthat came tobe signed,may1first
brieflyrefertoa fewrelevant eventsthat occurred just before oil becamesignificantinthearea.
27. After Ibn Saud had driventhe Turks out ofHasa in 1913,he was initially inclined to
consider himself heir to someof the Sheikhdomswhich wereformerlyin the Wahabeearea of
influence,including Bahrain,QatarandtheTrucialsheikhdoms2'.At thetime he also sought good
relationswiththe British. As Qatarhas shown,the PoliticalResident,SirPercy Cox,had warned
him that thesecould exist onlyonconditionthatIbnSaudwasnot to disturbthe status quoor cause
unrest arnong the Arab principalities whosenilers were in treaty relations with the British
Govement. These,he pointedout, includedtheprincipality ofQatar,the independence of which
under the govemment of the late Sheikh Jasimbin Thani and his successorshad recently been
recognized by the British and Turkish ~overnments*~. The reference of course was to the
Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1913. Thereafter, Ibn Saud and the British (represented by
SirPercyCox)entered intoa Treatyin December 1915; ArticleVI of the Treaty incorporated an
undertakingby Ibn Saudto refrainfromany aggression on,or interferencein Bahrain,Qatar and
the otherSheikhdomswhohadtreaty relations with the~ritish".
28. However,despitethis background,in perhapsthe first overt challenge to the temtorial
integrity of Qatar after prospectsfor the discovery of oilhad become promising, Sir Percy Cox
discovered during a meeting in 1922 that Ibn Saud, in his discussions with potential oil
concessionairesfor the Hasaregion,had apparently includedthe Qatar Peninsulawithinthe tractof
territoryforwhichhe waspreparingto negotiate a concession.
It is reportedthat SirPercyCox atoncetookhimto task, remindinghimthathe hadnothingto do
with Qatarandto respectthe termsof the 1915Treaty. Ibn Saud accordingly grantedthe first oil
concessionin 1933to theStandardOilCompanyofCaliforniain respectofthe Hasaregiononly.
27~ounter-~emonalof Qatar,para.3.43.
28~emonalof Qatar,Ann.111.5, ol. 6,p. 283.
2q~emonalof Qatar,Ann.111.6, ol. 6,p. 295.
30~upplementaDlocumentsof Qatar,doc.6,p. 18. 29. Retuniing to oil concessiondevelopments in Bahrain and Qatar,1propose to draw the
Court's attention,to thearious eventsoccurring in the 1920sandalmost in parallel,in the 1930s,
in thehistory ofoilconcessionsrelevantto the boundaries of both Bahrain and Qatar.
30. In 1923,Frank Holmes,who became a well-known figure in the area in relation to oil
concession negotiations,in his capacityas the representativeof the Eastern and GeneralSyndicate
Limited (EGS as it is called), prepared a draft agreement to be concluded with Bahrain for a
petroleum concession31.The draft wasduly signedby Frank Holmes and his signature witnessed.
This draft essentiallyproposed a comprehensive concessionto be granted by the Ruler of Bahrain
to EGS for 70 yearsin the "landknownas THE BAHREINISLANDS"including rightsto set up a
refinery. The Bahrainislands to whichthe proposed concession was to applyare referredto in the
draft concessioninthe followingwordswhich arenow onthe screen:
"THIS GROUP of ISLANDS (hereinafter called THE CONCEDED
TERRITORY)is more particularly shownand delineatedon the MAP attached tothis
Agreement, and MARKEDin RED Colourationthereon, al1the islandsformin Part
of THESHEIKH'sDominionsareincludedin the CONCEDEDTERRITORY."~ f
The map referredto in the draft concessionis also signedby Frank ~olmes~~.1wouldrespectfully
ask the Court to seethis map34now onthe screen [fuiiand zoom] and notice how clearly it marks
the groupof islandscomprisingthetemtory of Bahrain.
31. Admittedly the draft to which the map was attached did not mature into a final
concession (as theproposals it containedwere at the time presumably regardedas excessive and
premature). However, contrary to Bahrain's contentionin its ~ounter-~emorial~~that the purpose
of the red colouringon the map was to define only the areaproposed by EGS, the descriptionof
Bahrain in the draft concession and the map 1 have just shown to the Court, clearly provide
evidenceof whatwas consideredtheterritorialextentof Bahrain. The description refersto "al1the
Islands formingPart of THE SHEIKH'sDominions" and "MARKEDin RED" showing them as
quite distinct from mainland Qatar and its imrnediately adjoining Hawar Islands. Another map
3'~emorialofQatar,Ann.111., ol.6,p. 323.
321bid,.327(emphasisadded).
33~bid.p,.345.
34~bid,.345.
3S~ounter-~emoriaolf Bahrain,para.200.preparedby Mr.Holrnesfiveyearslater,in 1928,[mapNo. 711showingvariousoil concessionsin
the Gulf area and now on the screen [full and zoom]is identicalto the 1923map andsimilarly
showsBahrainin a distinctcolourseparating itfromQatarand theHawarIslands.
32. A ConcessionAgreementwas eventually signedbetweenEGS andthe Ruler ofBahrain
in December 1925. In terms of this Agreement,EGSwas granted an exclusivelicence to explore
the territory of Bahrain and the right thereafter to a mininglease over an area not exceeding
100,000acres tobe selectedbythe Company.Althoughno map wasattachedtothe Agreement, its
terms were to apply "throughoutthe whole of thetemtories under his [that is the Ruler of
Bahrain's]control". As 1 will shortly show,this descriptionwas later expresslycitedby the India
Office to supportthe Britishview in 1933that no area in mainlandQatar northe Hawar Islands
couldbe regardedas part of Bahrain. Bahrain attemptstoarguein its ~ounter-~emorial~~ thatthe
1925Agreementonly appliedto the Bahrainmainisland. Thiscontention, Mr. President,is hardly
consistentwiththe expression"throughoutthe wholeofthe territoriesunderhis control",and even
Qatar does not suggest that the Ruler's controlwas confined onlyto the main Bahrain island.
Furthermore, Bahrain itself admits the intention was that "no geologically significanttemtory
would be excludedfrom the conce~sion"~~I.n any event,this is furtherevidenceof what, in the
contextof thediscoveryof oil, the entity of "Bahraiwas-reallyunderstood tobe in 1925.
33. In the meantime,negotiationshad alsobegunbetween theAnglo-PersianOil Company
(APOCas it wascalled),andthe Rulerof Qatarwithregardto thepossibility of APOC securing an
oil concession in Qatar. In August 1932, APOC, through its representative, Mr.C. C. Mylles,
concludedan ~greement~'with the Ruler of Qatar, wherebyit was granted exclusive exploration
rights fortwoyears withinthe "temtoriesof Qatar"andan exclusiveright to apply for a concession
duringthatperiod. APOCwas alsograntedpermissionto carryout a detailed geologicalsurveyof
Qatar which it undertook early in 1933. The GeologicalSurvey Report of July 1933is an
t
importantpieceof evidenceshowingthat the geologists regardedthe HawarIslandsas part of the
36~ounter-~emonalofBahrain,paras.201-203.
37~bi paa.203.
38~upplemental ocumentsof Qatar,doc. 10,p. 45; doc. 11,p. 47.territoryof Qatar. Theystate in theirreport39that althoughtheydidnotvisitthe islandsof Rubadh
and Howar, theseislandsweretopographicallyso similarto the Abanikpeninsulaonthe mainland
that the Hawar group effectively formed part of that peninsula40. That APOC's geologists
consideredtheHawarIslandsto be part ofQatar'stemtory is furtherconfinnedby the absenceof
theseislandsfrom theareasspecifiedasoutsideor beyondthe Sheikhof Qatar'stemtory4'.
34. Next, and most important, is the rnap produced bythe APOC geologists titled
"Geologicalsketchrnapof Qatarpeninsula"and attached totheir report as the illustrationin plate
No.1which distinctlyillustratesthe temtory of ~atar~~.This rnap is now on the screenand the
Court will see how clearlyit marks areascomprisingQatarand so obviously includingthe Hawar
Islands. 1will returnto this rnaplater,Mr.President,whendealingwiththe final map, alsobased
onthismap, which eventually cameto beattachedtotheQatarOilConcession.
35. The next important steptowards defining the temtory of Qatar was initiated in the
secondhalf of 1933 whenthe Secretaryof State forIndia soughtthe views of the Governrnentof
India on the boundaries ofQatar in connectionwith APOC'snegotiationswiththe Ruler of Qatar
for anoil conce~sion~~.
36. But before 1 describe the extensive activitythat followed upon this initiative of the
Secretaryof State, 1 would like to refer to some simultaneousevents that were alsotakingplace
with regard to determining the extent of Bahrain which could be covered by a second oil
concession. In thejargon of the time, thiswas referred toas a concession whichwould cover
Bahrain's "unallotted area", thatis, the area that would remain after the Bahrain Petroleurn
Company- BAPCOas it came to be called- to whom the 1925 EGS concessionhad been
assignedin themeantirne,had selectedthe 100,000acresthat1have alreadymentioned.
37. Ofparticularsignificancein thecontext ofofficia1British recognition,in the early 1930s,
that the Hawar Islands appertained toQatarand not to Bahrain arethe following fourpieces of
3g~upplementl ocumentsof Qatar,doc. 12,p. 49, atp. 64.
401bid, . 69.
4'lbid.,pp. 66and70.
42~ounter-~ernonal of Qatar, Ann.III.35, Vol.3, p. 185;eferred to as Plate1 under "Illustrations"
Supplemental DocumentsofQatar,doc. 12,p. 51.
43~upplernentl ocumentsof Qatar,doc.7,p. 20.evidencedating from 1933out of the India Officeand Political Residencycorrespondencewhich 1
mentioned earlier:
(1) In connection with determining the territorialextent of the unallotted area for which a new
concessioncouldbe granted,Laithwaite oftheIndia Office,in a letterof 3 May 1933,that is a
few weeks before the initiative on Qatar'sboundaries, wrote to the Petroleurn ~e~artment~''
that: "in considering anygant of a concessionin respect of his 'dominions' or'Bahrein'it
would seemnecessary to have a clear understandingas to preciselywhatis covered".
In thesameletter,Laithwaite mentionedthat "theSheikhmaintains arather nebulous claim to
certain areas on the Arab coast, with which it is unnecessary to deal here" and then baldly
went onto Saythatthe dominions ofthe RulerofBahrainmaybe regardedas consisting of the
Bahrain archipelago. Laithwaitedefinesthe Bahrain archipelagoas comprisingthe samefive
islandsnamed by Lorimerin 1908withoutanymentionof the HawarIslands.
(2) Atelegrarnfrom the Acting Political Resident (Loch)to the SecretaryofState forthe Colonies
of 23 July 1933, about Bahrain oil, points out that it would beprudent to narne the Bahrain
islands ...otherwise controversymay arise over Hawar, and Bahrainclaim to certain places
on the westcoast of Qatarpeninsula4s.
When the Ruler of Bahrain objected to naming the islands covered "so that the question of
Hawar and Qatar (sic) will not be made prominent by their omission", Loch, as Acting
PoliticalResident,went even furtherand recornrnendedto Londonthat the Ruler'sviewmight
be accepted becausehe said, "asHawarIslandis clearlynot one oftheBahrain OU^"^^.
The Court will carefully note Loch'sview, in 1933, that Hawar Island did not appertain to
Bahrain. This is in stark contrast to the support, to which 1 will have occasion to refer in
anotherpresentation, whichboth he and Fowle gavein 1936to the Bahrain claim to the Hawar
Islands.
i
(3) When the Secretaryof State for India requestedthe Political Resident,on 2 August 1933,to
provide him with a "marked map showingthe area recognized as Bahrain Islands", Loch,as
"Memonal of Qatar, Ann.111.8V,ol. 6,p. 435.
4S~emorialof Qatar, Ann111.8V,ol. 6,p. 437.
46~emorialof Qatar, Ann111.8V,ol. 6,p. 449. the Acting Political Resident,responded on 4 August 1933,by enclosing a map publishedin
1906by the Surveyof India. Unfortunately,the map is missing from the Britisharchives,but
Loch'scovering despatch namesthe same five islands listedin his letter of 3May 1933,that 1
havejust mentioned,and certainislets,as "includedin the general term Bahrain~slands"~~.
(4) The consideredview of the India Office at thistime is given in Laithwaite'smer letterto
Starling of 9 August 1933. Laithwaite refersin this letter to the possible risk that a claim
might be put fonvard by the Bahrain concessionaire to "rightsin respect of Hawar .. .".
However,as 1indicated earlier, he pointedout that the explorationlicence of 1925,between
EGS and the Ruler of Bahrain, was in respect of "'the whole of the tenitories' under the
Sheikh's'controln',and he goeson to Say:
"This seems clearly to exclude areas in Qatar and presumably also would
exclude Hawar which belongs in any case geographically to Qatar, and is the
westemmost and largestofa groupof islands,just offthe Qatar~oast."~*
SoLaithwaite,who wasthe mostknowledgeableofficia1inthe India Office at thattimeof the
geography of this part of the Gulf, was unhesitatinglyof the view in 1933that the Ruler of
Bahrain did not exercise any control whatsoever over the Hawar Islands: and nobody in
London,or indeedin the Gulf, soughtto challengethis conclusion.
38. Mr. President, Members of the Court, al1 these pieces of evidence, taken together,
demonstratedecisivelythat for thepurpose of thenew oil concession for Bahrain'sunallottedarea,
the BritishGovemment was firmlyof the view, in 1933,that the Bahrain archipelagoconsistedof
the fivenamedislandsand didnotaccept thatBahrainhad title to the Hawar Islands.
39. Qatar hasalso drawnattention tothe fa~t~t~ hat independentcalculationswere madefor
the India Office,by the PetroleumDepartmentin London in 1933, ofthe area comprisingBahrain
Islands workablefor oil exploitation. Qatar has demonstrated,in its Memorial, that itis beyond
question that the 1933 calculationscould not have included the acreages of the Hawar Islands,
Fasht Dibal,or Qit'at~aradah".
-
47~emorialof Qatar,Ann.111.90, ol. 6, p.457.
48~emorialof Qatar,Ann.111.91, ol. 6, p.467.
49h?emoriaolf Qatar,par..18; Memorialof Qatar,Ann.11.92,Vol. 6,p.473.
5%emorialof Qatar,para6..19. 40. Let me now tum to the events occurringat aboutthe same time with regard to Qatar's
boundaries. Actingon the request of the Secretaryof Statefor India,after someexamination of the
issue, a file note was preparedin India, in January 1934~',which recordsthat the necessity ofthe
determination of the boundaries of Qatarhad arisen in connectionwith APOC'snegotiationswith
the Sheikhof Qatar for an oil concessioninhistemtory. It furtherrecordsthat "we arerequiredto
determine the southem boundary only"and concludesthat theGovernrnent of India accepted the
boundary describedby Lorimer.
41. At the same time, the British authoritiesin Londonundertook anextensive and detailed
examination of what comprisedthe boundariesof Qatar. In connectionwith this investigation a
detailed memorandum was prepared in the India to which Qatarrespectfully draws the
Court's special attention. The Memorandumcontains an elaborate examination ofthe relevant
historical facts about Qatar's southem boundary and contains conclusions to the effect, as
Professor Salmonpointed out,that "theboundariesof Qatar shallbe acceptedas being onthe north,
east and west, the sea"; and on the south,a line running acrossthe base of the peninsula between
two specific points53.A note at the foot of the Memorandumconfms that the above conclusions
were also acceptedby the Governmentof Indiaand the PoliticalResidentin February 1934.
42. The record now availableshowsthatat leastthreeelaborate meetings of a sub-committee
of the British Committee of the Imperia1Defence were held in London early in 1934, on
23 February, 23March, and again on 12April 1934, on the subject of theQatar boundary, where
senior officiais of the Foreign Office, the India Office, and a number of other concemed
departments were present. The India Office Memorandumthat 1havejust mentioned was one of
the documentsconsidered and approvedat these meetings. Theobject of the meetings was stated
to be to determinethe boundaries ofQatarfortwo reasons. Firstly,in view ofthe possibility ofthe
discoveryof oil, the territorythat couldbe coveredby theconcessionthat Qatar was likelyto grant;
and secondly,as efforts were to be madeto persuade theRulerof Qatar to grant the concessionto
APOC, regarded as a British Company,andasthe Rulerof Qatar inconsiderationof agreeingto do
51~upplementaDlocumentsof Qatar,doc.7,p.20.
52~ounter-~emoriaolf Qatar,Ann.111., ol.3,p. 215.
"lbid.,p.220.so, would ask for and be given a British guaranteeof protection of Qatar against aggressionby
land, to determine therefore the geographical limitsof Qatar within which any such British
guaranteeof protection would apply54.
43. Anotheraspectconsideredby the Sub-Cornmitteewasthat an enquiryhad been made on
behalf of the US State Department on the Anglo-TurkishConvention of 1913 in relation to the
course of the boundary betweenQatar and SaudiArabia, that is Qatar's southemboundary; and it
wasbelieved thatthe objectof the enquirywasto ascertainthelimitswithin which the StandardOil
Company of California couldoperateits concessionfkomIbn saud5'.
44. Instructionswerethereforegivento providethe UnitedStates authoritieswiththe texts of
the Anglo-TurkishConventionsof 1913and 1914,reaffixmingthe boundaries of Qatar envisaged
in these Conventions. A specificrecommendation was also made that the proposed British
guaranteeof protectionwould operatewithinthe temtory of Qatarnorth of what cameto be called
the "blueline"laid downin the 1913 onv vent io nnd^thereforethe entirepeninsula.
45. In accordance with the decisionstaken at these meetings, the Political Resident duly
began efforts to persuadethe Ruler, ShaikhAbdullahof Qatar,to agree to gant the oil concession
to APOC. At bis meeting for this purpose with the Ruler on 12March 1934~'~ he not only
discussed the extent of Qatar territory to which the British-QatarTreaty of 1916applied,but also
pressed hirn to grantthe concession toAPOC; andnotified him that the British Government was
prepared in return to protecthim against any attack by land and to help him with the necessary
force.
46. However, as Qatar has shown in its ~e~lJ', during this meeting the Ruler of Qatar
claimed that the British-QatarTreatyof 1916included onlythe Coast. His reason for making this
contentionappearsto havebeen thathe wantedtobe fkeeto granta concessionoverthe bulk ofhis
territory- the "interior",as opposedto the coastline- to the oilCompanyof his choice,without
"~u~~lementalDocuments ofQatar,doc. 8,p. 24.
"Ibid., p. 27.
56~bid,. 32.
"~ounter-~emonal ofBahrain,Ann. 122,Vol.2,p. 412.
58~eplyof Qatar, paras.2.61-2.62.havingto seekBritish approval forsuch a concession. The recordof this meeting5'also indicates
that the Rulerwas somewhat apprehensiveof annoying Ibn Saudby not grantinga concession to
theoilCompanypreferredbythelatter(i.e.,StandardOil, hisAmericanconcessionaire).
47. Qatarhas of coursedrawnattentionto the factthat the PoliticalResident,in response to
what the Rulerhad said aboutthe 1916Treatynot includingthe interior but onlythe Coast,told
ShaikhAbdullah:
"According to Bin Sa'ud's Treatywith the British Government he cannot
interferein your affairsandit is becauseof your Treatywith the Governmentthat he
cannotdo anything andif he does,the Govemmentwillpreventhim. Andyou are the
Rulerofal1Qatarand theTreatyextendsto thewholeofQatar."60
48. In connectionwiththe British guarantee of protection to be providedin return for anoil
concessionforAPOC, theSub-Comrnittee hadalso approved aproposa1for a reconnaissance tobe
undertakenof thetemtory of ~atar~'.
49. As Qatar has shown, an aerial recomaissance of Qatar by the Royal AirForce was
therefore undertaken on 9 May 1934 after permission for over-flight of his territory had been
soughtand received from theRuler of Qatar. A report made thereafter62clearly showsthat the
Hawarmainislandwas includedin this reconnaissanceas part of Qatar,that the aircraft flew over
theislandandtook photographs ofit whichwere thenmadeapart of the report.
50. Thereafter, detailed negotiationswere undertaken extending over the next 12months
withthe Rulerof Qatarinrespectofthetermsof anoil concessionin favourof APOC. Duringthis
period, negotiations betweenthe British authorities and representatives of Ibn Saud were also
conductedtotry and finalizethe southernboundaryofQatar. Qatarhas discussedin somedetailin
its ~e~l~t~ h~position that was taken by the Britishwith SaudiArabia in the 1930s~~ whichwas
that the integrity of the Qatar peninsulahad to be preserved evenif some temtory was to be
allowedtoSaudiArabia eastof the "blue line"in the south. As is now wellknown,thisboundary
S9~ounter-~emoriaolfBahrain, nn. 122,Vol.2,p. 412.
60~bid.
61~upplementDalocumentsof Qatar,doc.8,pp.26and33.
62~ernorialf Qatar,Ann.111.9, ol.6,p.479.
63~eplyofQatar,paras.2.6eseq.
64~yreferenceto MapNo. 84inReplyofQatar MapAtlas.was finally determined manyyears lateras a result of directnegotiationsbetweenSaudiArabiaand
Qatar. However,for the purposes of the proposedQataroil concession infavour of APOC,a line
generally acrossthe south of the peninsula was adoptedas the southem limit of the concession
area. The Concession Agreement between the Ruler of Qatar and APOC was finally signed on
17May 1935 with the requisite Britishapproval. Prior to the execution of the Agreement, the
Political Resident duly furnished a guarantee of protection on behalfof Britain to the Ruler of
Qatar by his letter of 11May 1935statingthat the guarantee "willbe extemal, i.e., againstserious
and unprovokedattacks whichmay be made on yourtemtory from outsideyour fr~ntier"~~T . here
was no indication whatsoeverthat the Hawar Islandsor Zubarah were tobe excluded fiom such
territoryor indeedthat it contemplatedan "extemal"attackfiom Hawaror Zubarah!
51.The secondArticle of the Qatar Concessionof May 1935indicatesthe area coveredby it
as being the State of Qatar which is defined as "the whole area over which the Shaikhrules and
which is markedon the north of the linedrawn on the map"which was attached to the Concession
Agreement. TheCourt will notice that the map which is now on the screen is formallysigned by
the Rulerof Qatarand the sameMr. C. C. Mylleson behalfof APOC,to the east of Bahrainand on
the west sideof Qatar.
52. As Qatar has shown in its ~ounter-~emorial~~,there had been some discussion of the
map to be annexedto the Concession Agreementat a meetingheld betweenAPOC representatives
and India Office officiaison 10January 1939', a few months before the Agreementwas entered
into. The only issue conceming the territory of Qatar to be covered by the concession, which
required clarification, was the southem limit of such territory. At the meeting APOC sought
confirmationthat the southemboundaryof Qatar,which hadbeen indicatedto its geologistson the
ground by the Ruler of Qatar personally (and which had subsequentlybeen shown on the map
prepared by the geologists and circulated in February1934)~~,was satisfactory to the British
Governrnentforthe purposes of themap to be attachedtothe concession. Followingthis meeting,
65~emonalof Qatar,Ann.111.98, ol.6,pp.503-504.
66~ounter-~emonaolf Qatar, para3..72(7).
67~ounter-~emoriaolf Qatar,Ann.111, ol. 3, p. 247(inpartpara.7atpp.251-252).
68~ounter-~emoriaolfQatar,Ann.111.3, ol. 3,p.209.Laithwaite ofthe India Office, after consultationwith Rende1of the Foreign Office, informed
APOCon 22January1935,that there wasnoobjectionto the Company's accepting as the southem
limitof the concessionthe linemarkedon the APOCgeologists'rnapof ~atar~'. No questionwas
raisedor doubt expressedaboutanyotherpartofQatartobe shownon themap.
53. Thernapwhichis nowonthe screenand was attached tothe QatarOil Concession,thus
came to be based on the rnap preparedby the APOC geologistsin 1933and enclosedwith their
Reportof thatyear. Thatmap,the Courtwillrecall, showedHawarand Zubarahclearlyas partof
~atar~'. Thatwas the rnap1showedto theCourtearliertoday, andthis is againonthe screen now.
A comparisonof thetwo maps of Qatar,and both are on the screen,clearlydemonstrates thatthe
territoryof Qatarcoveredin the concessionrnapis the sameas inthe geologistsrnapwhichshowed
the extentof QatarincludingHawarand Zubarah. This was only tobe expectedas oneimportant
objectofpreparingtheinitialgeologistsrnapmust necessarily havebeento preparethe finalrnapto
be attached tothe ConcessionAgreement.
54. 1 referredearlier to the documentaryevidence showingthat in 1933, Britishofficials
were clearlyoftheviewthat theHawarIslandswerepart of Qatar. Thereis nothingto suggestthat
this viewhadchangedwhenthe QatarConcession Agreement was signedin May 1935. But when
the selection of the concessionaire for Bahrain'unallottedarea beganto be considered activelyin
1936,andtheRulerofBahrainadvancedaforma1claimto theHawar Islandsin April 1936,British
officials, in circumstances1will havethe opportunityto discussin another presentation,without
anyjustification whatsoever, reversed their earlievriew and began to treat the Hawar Islandsas
part of Bahrain. Itis against this backgroundthat the India Office, in a letter of 14 May 1936,
sought to explainawaythe rnapattached to theQatarconcessionby assertingthat theobjectofthe
rnapwassimplyto defmethe southemboundaryof the concession7'andwas notrelevantto Qatar's
ownershipofHawar. It is Qatar's respecthl submission that todefinethe southemboundaryofthe
concessionmay have been one of the purposes, but it certainly could nothave been the sole
1
69~ounter-~emonaolf Qatar,Ann.111., ol. 3, p.257.
70~ounter-~emorialf Qatar,Ann.111.35,Vol. 3, p. 185; and referredto as Plate1 under "Illustrations"
SupplementaDl ocumentsofQatar,doc. 12,p. 51.
"~emorialofBahrainA, nn.248,Vol.5p.1076.purpose of a rnap attached to an Oil ConcessionAgreementcovering "the wholearea over which
the Shaikhrules".
55.Mr.President, Membersof the Court, in theextensive record of the careful investigation
of the boundaries of Qatar that 1 have described which were to be covered by the 1935 Oil
Concession as well as the British guarantee of protection of those boundaries, there was no
indication or suggestion whatsoever, that either theHawar Islands or Zubarah would not be
includedwithinthe concession areaor the area to be coveredby the guarantee. The rnap attached
to the 1935 Concession clearly depicts the Hawar Islandsas lying on the north of the line
representingthe southem boundary of the concession area. North of that line was the area over
which the Sheikh of Qatar ruled. The area clearly includedthe Hawar Islands, the main island
being specificallynamed "Jezirat Howar". It is inconceivable that govemmentdepartments in
London wouldhave acceptedthis definition of the State of Qatar for the purposes of the 1935
Concessionandthe guaranteeof protectionhad they, or indeedany of them, seriouslythoughtthat
theRuler of Bahrainhadany rights eitherinthe Hawar Islandsor Zubarah.
56. It wouldbe entirelyreasonableto thinkthat ifanyBahrain interestin the peninsula orthe
Hawar Islands was to be taken into account in relation to the oil concession or the guarantee of
protection,this would have beenclearly indicated either by a marking on the rnap attached to the
ConcessionAgreementof May 1935or in a reservationin the terms of the guarantee ofprotection
containedin the Political Resident'sletterof 11May 1935to the Ruler of Qatar. Nosuchmarking
or reservation wasmade for the obvious reason that none of those involved had any thought that
HawarorZubarahwere notpart of Qatar.
57. It is therefore Qatar's submission, Mr. President, in al1 the circumstances 1 have
described,that Bent'srnapprepared forthe RoyalGeographicalSocietyin 1890and Holmes'maps
prepared for oil concessionsin the 1920s correctly illustratetheextent of Bahrain; and the rnap
attached tothe Qatar Oil Concession Agreement,based asit was on the 1933 geologists map, is
irrefutable evidence of the boundaries of Qatar as consisting of the whole peninsula including
Zubarahandthe adjoiningislands includingthe Hawar Islands.
Mr. President, this concludesmy presentation and 1would request you to give the floor to
SirIan Sinclairunlessyou wishthis tobe thetime for the break. Thankyouverymuch. The. PRESIDENT: Thankyou verymuchMr. Shankardass. The Courtwill now suspendits
meetingfor a quarter ofan hour.
TheCourtadjourned from 11.20a.m.to 11.40a.m.
Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vous asseoir. La séance estreprise et je donne maintenantla
parolea SirIan Sinclair. SirIan Sinclair,youhavethe floor.
Sir Ian SINCLAIR: Mr.President,Membersof the Court, it is, as always, a great privilege
and an honour for me to appear before you again, this time on behalf of the State of Qatar.
Mr. President,this morning 1intend to addressthe Court essentiallyon the geographyof theHawar
Islands,togetherwith the principleof proximity.
GEOGRAPHYOFTHEHAWARISLANDSANDTHEPRINCIPLEOFPROXIMITY
Compositionof theHawarIslands: macro-geography
1.At the outset,the Court will note thatthere is a clear differencebetweenthe Partiesas to
the compositionof the collectionof islands,islets and rocks knownas the HawarIslands and as to
the relevance of their location [show Map No.2 in Memorial of Qatar]. From the
macro-geographicalpoint of view demonstratedby the map, which has now been put up on the
screen, it is evident that theHawar Islandsare closely associated with themainland of Qatar and
that each of the islandsin thecollectivityknown bythat narnelies nearer tothe mainlandof Qatar
thanto the main islandofBahrain. Now,if it is suggestedthat this maphas beenpreparedby Qatar
for thepurpose of this case andcannot thereforebe relied upon, let us look at Map No. 100in the
MapAtlas submittedwiththe Qatar Reply [showMap No.100in MapAtlas]. This is of course a
reproduction of Bahrain ChartNo. 5005 publishedin 1987. This Chart portrays the relationship
between the Hawar Islands andthe mainland of Qatar in a manner very similar tothat shownon
Map No. 2 in theMemorialof Qatar whichyouhavejust seen. The Courtmay find it interestingto i
comparethese twomaps which1have shown youwith amap submittedby Bahrainin Volume7 of
the Memorial of Bahrain. Thisin fact is MapNo. 2 in the BahrainMap Atlasand a copyof this is
in your foldersthis morningas item No. 24. The Courtwill note how thismap,becauseit shows orpurportsto show the positionat high
tide- althoughit does not in fact Sayso- exaggeratesthe distancebetween the Hawar Islands
and the mainland of Qatar and foreshortens the distancebetween them and the main islandof
Bahrain. But a side-effect of this somewhat unbalancedpresentation is that Fashtad Dibal and
Qitat Jaradeh are simply not represented on Bahrain MapNo. 2. Perhaps conscious of this
unwelcome side-effect of their map, Bahrainseeks to remedyit by putting a rectangle around the
eastem half of Bahrain Islandand partof the westem coastalarea of Qatar, includingZubarahand
the Hawar Islands,on BahrainMap No. 2 and captioningthis rectangle [demonstrate]:"Formore
detail of the areasee Map6". This is shownby an arrow. Letus therefore now look at MapNo. 6
in the Bahrain Map ~tlas', a copy of this is in your folders as item No. 25. The Court will
immediately note that this map showsthe position at lowtide, but without indicating on themap
that this is so. The result is that Fashtelibal and QitatJaradeh- invisible on Bahrain Map
No. 2- suddenly make an appearance, as do other low-tideelevations such as FashtAl Azm,
Qitat ash Shajarahand Qita'aal Erge. The position of Qatar inrelation tohese named featuresis
clearly set out in paragraphs7.34to 7.41of the QatarReply. Asimilar criticismcan of coursebe
made of the photographs at pages 143to 15 1(a) of Bahrain'sSupplementalDocuments. Al1these
photographs were clearlytaken at high tide rather than low tide so that the distanceswhich they
show, for example, between the tail of Hawar Islandand the mainland of Qatar or between the
Zekritpeninsulaand the HawarIslands,are alwaysexaggerated.
2. But toretum to the configurationof the HawarIslands, both MapNo. 2 in the Memorial
of Qatarand MapNo. 100inthe MapAtlas submittedwiththe Reply of Qatar showthatthe Hawar
Islands as a wholecan be taken as representingfragmentsof land whichbecarnedetachedfrom the
mainland of Qatarat sometime in thepast. Alreadyin its Memorial,Qatarpointed outthat Qatar's
westem coastin the vicinity ofthe HawarIslands is veryragged,and likenedit to "ajigsaw puzzle
with a few missing pieces"2. Those missing pieces are the Hawar Islands themselveswhich are
needed to completethe curveof Qatar'swestem coastbetweenRas al Uwaynatand RasUmmHish
[showMapNo.2 in Memorial of Qataragain]. Fromthisperspective,as the Court will now see
'Memonalof Bahrain,Vol.7.
'Mernorialof Qatar,para.4.2.on the screen, the Hawar Islands can be seen as constitutingan integral part of Qatar'smainland
coast.
3. The geology and geomorphology of the area confirm this conclusion. In its
Counter-Memorial,Bahrain saw"no need to commenton the geology of the Qatar peninsula" nor
indeed of the Hawar 1slands3. We may assume therefore that Bahrain does not contest Qatar's
conclusionthat the bedrock ofthe HawarIslands is the sarneage and type asthat of the adjacent
mainlandof ~atar~. One consequenceof this conclusionis that the area of the Hawar Islands can,
in terms of coastal processes,be said to constitute anintegral part of the Western Qatar coastal
system.
4. Before 1 leave the macro-geography of the Hawar Islands, which 1 have just been
discussing,1would wish to remind the Court of the evidencewhich Qatar already produced-
yesterday, and again this morning- demonstratingthe territorial integnty of Qatar as a whole,
narnely,the entiretyof the peninsula and the immediateoff-lyingHawar Islands. In this context,1
would remind the Members of the Court of the presentationsmade yesterdayand indeed earlier
today by my colleagues, Ms Pilkington and Dr.Fetais. So far as the written pleadings are
concerned,1wouldreferthemto ChapterII of the Counter-Memorialof Qatar,and, in particular, to
ChapterII of the Replyof Qatarwith its many Annexes drawnfrom Turkishas well as British and
other sources. This documentary evidence, read in combination with the map evidence,
demonstratesbeyonda shadowof doubtthat, in the early 1930s,Qatar as a political entity covered
both the peninsulaas a whole, includingZubarah,and theHawar Islands lyingimmediatelyoff the
western coastof the peninsula.
CompositionoftheHawarislands: micro-geography
5. Mr. President,1 have so far concentrated only on the macrogeography of the Hawar
Islands consideredas a collectivity. Butwhat about the microgeographyyoumay ask? Let us start
withthe composition of the collectionof islands,isletsandrocksknown asthe Hawar Islands. For .
a pnncipality which claims that membersof the Dowasirtribe professingallegiance tothe Ruler of
3~ounter-~emorialofBahrain, para.163.
4~emorialof Qatar, para.4.6.Bahrain have been in virtuallyunintempted occupationof the Hawar Islands for over 150years
prior to the 1930s(apart from a period of three to four years inthe 1920s),and which claims to
have administeredthe islands throughoutthis period, it is indeed remarkable how little senior
Bahrainiofficiaisandmembersof the rulingfarnilyof Bahrainknew aboutthe Hawar Islandseven
as late as 1936 [show Map No.9 facing p. 145 of Memorial of Qatar]. When Belgrave first
presenteda Bahrainiclaim to the Hawar Islands inbis letterto the then Political Agent (Loch)on
28 April 1936'~- and a copy of that letter is in your foldersas item No.-26he identifiedthe
Hawar group of islands as including thefollowing named islands, as well as a number of small
islets and 1hope the Court will forgiveme if my pronunciationof some of these named islets
and islandsisnot altogetheraccurate. The listis as follows:
1. Noon
2. Meshtaan
3. Al-Matenad
4. Rubadh
5. Hawar
6. Ginan
7. Mahazwarah
Let us look at these named islands individually. Noon unfortunately cannot be seen on the
map in fiont of you; nor indeedcan Meshtaan. The reason is in fact that they havenothingto do
with the Hawar Islands. We will come back to them later [show Map No. 11 in
Counter-Mernorialof Qatar]. Al-Matteradis a small islet located some 3%miles north west of
RabadAl Gharbiyah,the most north-westerlyof the true HawarIslands. It is here indicatedon the
screen by an arrow [demonstrate]. As you will see, Al-Matteradlies closer to Meshtaan than to
RabadAl Gharbiyah,and shouldnot therefore be counted as oneof the Hawar Islands [showagain
Map No.9 facing p.145 of Memorial of Qatar]. Rubadh, the fourth on the list, is more
cornrnonlyknownas Rabadash Sharqiyah andis here wherethe arrow is pointing [demonstrate].
Hawar Islandis of coursethe mainislandofthe group,normallyreferred to as "JaziratHawar" and
'~ernorial ofQatar,Ann.III.103,Vol. 7,p. 15.it is here again wherethe arrow is pointing [demonstrate]. "Ginan" is of course normally spelt
Janan. Qatarhas neverconsideredJanan, whichis here wherethe arrowis pointing [demonstrate]
to be part of the Hawar group of islands. There is, as the Court will see, a deep water channel
which runs close to Jananbut not toHawar: Qatar will deal more fullywith the question ofJanan
Island within the framework of its presentation on the maritime delimitation. Finally,there is
Mahazwarah,otherwiseknown as "UmmKharurah and shownon the map before you under that
name [demonstrate]. To complete the picture of the islands formally claimedby Bahrain on
28 April 1936,underthe name of the "HawarIslands",1nowhave to showyou anothermap [show
Map No. 6 in Mernorialof Bahrain,Vol. 71. Two "features"(to use a neutral term) are shown
here, quite close to the south-east coast of Bahrain Island,under the names of "QassarNun" and
"HalatNun". Thesearenow indicatedby two arrows [demonstrate].
6. The Persian GulfPilot, in its most recently corrected editionof 4 September, 1997,gives
them the names "SabkhaNoon" and "HalatNoon" and describes them as low islets lying,
respectively,about two miles east and south-east of Ras al Barr. These islets clearly appertainto
Bahrain,and have alwaysso appertained,because they liewithinthe temtorial sea of Bahraineven
when (asin 1936)thattemtorial seawas limited to three miles measured from thelow-water mark
alongthe coast of themain Bahrainisland. "Meshtaan"is describedin thePersian GulfPilot as an
islet on which there is a cairn. It lies about4%miles east-north-eastof SabkhaNoon and is now
indicatedby an arrow [demonstrate]. As can be seen, it liescloser to the main island of Bahrain
than to the mainland of Qatar or evento the Hawar Islands properlyso called. So "Noon" and
"Meshtaan"do not formpart of the HawarIslands. Qatar hasneverclaimed title tothem and finds
it difficult to understand why Bahrain should have regarded them asforming part of the Hawar
group unless Bahrain,despite its protestationsto the contrary, was totally ignorantat the time, in
1936,ofthe compositionof the group.
7. After all, Belgrave did not includein his 1936list the second andthird largest islandsin
terms of area in the Hawar group, narnely, Suwadal Janubiyah and Suwadash Shamaliyah; and %
this despitethe factthat,in his letterof 28 April 1936,he boldly(butquiteuntruthfùlly)assertsthat
"at least four of the larger islands are permanently occupiedby [theRuler ofahrain's]subjects".
We know now that, in 1936,none of the Hawar Islands was "permanently occupied"by anybody;at most, JaziratHawar (but,it would seem,no other island in the group) was visitedby fishermen
from Bahrain,Qatar and other tenitories in the vicinity during the winter time, these fishermen
being accustomedtoengagein seasonalfishingactivitiesin thewaters offHawarIsland.
8. Now, Mr. President,the second attemptto specify islands claimedby Bahrain is to be
found in a memorandum by Belgrave of 14 August 1937 in response to an enquiry fiom
Weightrnan (the then British Political Agent in ~ahrain)~. The memorandum States that, "in
addition to the large islands forming the Bahrain archipelago", five named reefs or islands
(includingFasht Dibalas areef and Qit'atJaradahas an island)belong to Bahrain,as also does"the
Howararchipelago,consistingof nine islands near theQatarcoast". The Courtwill note that,by a
mysterious process of what they presumably will assume to be accretion, the seven islands
mentionedin Bahrain's1936list havenow become nine. The inflationin nurnberswas to continue,
however.
9. The third attempt by Bahrain to specify the Hawar Islands which it claims was in its
"preliminary statement" submitted by Belgrave to Weightrnan on 29 May 1938, within the
frameworkof the supposed"enquiry"being conductedby the British authonties in the Gulf asto
whether the Hawar Islandsappertained to Bahrainor to ~atar'. The Annex to this "preliminary
statement" lists the main HawarIsland and 16 other islands, islets and rocks as constituting the
Hawar groupof islands. Amongthese 16islands,islets androcks will be found,for the first time,
the second and third largest islands in the Hawar group, namely, Suwadal Janubiyah and
Suwadash Shamaliyah(sometimes referredto as "South Sawad"or "NorthSawad"). As 1already
indicated, these two islands had been ornitted fiom Belgrave's 1936 list. Faced with this
unexpected and unexplained growth between 1936 and 1938 in the number of islands said by
Bahrain to constitutethe Hawargroup, the PoliticalAgent in Bahrainin 1946(Galloway)decided
to regardthe Bahrainclaimto the Hawar Islandsas being confinedto the islands, islets and rocks
identifiedin the 1938list; thislist didnot includean an^.
6~emorial of Bahrain,Ann.334, Vol. 6,p. 1455.
'Memonal of Bahrain,Ann.261, Vol. 5,p. 1106.
'Mernorialof QataAnn.IV.92,Vol. 9,p. 435. 10.Bahrain argues that Gallowayshouldnot have excludedJanan fiom the list of islands,
islets and rocks included in the Hawar group, on the ground that the 1938 list submittedby
Belgrave was prefaced by a caveat that the 16 listed islands were onlythose islands on which
beacons had been erectedby Bahrain. This argument,1have to Say,is wholly specious,as 1shall
now irnmediately demonstrate. 1 now show on the screen a copy of the Annex to Bahrain's
"preliminarystatement"of 1938~(and a copyof this you willfind as item No.27 in yourfolders).
It will beseenthat the first sectionof this briefstatementreads:
"This group of islands consists ofone large island approximately11miles long
and at the widest point2 miles in width, with an area of about 17squaremiles which
is known as Hawar island and also a nurnber of islands and rocky islets which are
adjacentto Hawar island."
There then followsthis sentence: "On eachof the islandsthere is a stonebeacon about6 feethigh
surmounted by a pole on the top of which is an oil dm painted red and white, the Bahrain
colours." Qatarhas already shown(and it hasnot beendenied)that thesebeacons were erected by
Bahrain on the Hawar Islands and indeed elsewhere during the winter of 1937/38 in an obvious
attempt to bolster Bahrain'sclaim to sovereignty over theislands, rocks and shoals concemed. A
secondaryaimwas probablyto remedy Bahrain's woefulignoranceof the compositionand indeed
location of the islands. How Belgrave could, in his letter to Loch of 28 April 1936, assert
unblushinglythat "at least four of the larger islands are permanently occupiedby ... subjects [of
the Ruler ofBahrain]who live therein stonehouses as well as barastis ..."when he had noteven
included the second and thirdlargest islands of the Hawar group (the two Suwads) in his list of
seven claimedislands? Howthat happened defiesbelief. At this time, 1936,Belgravehimself had
never even visited any of the Hawar Islands. His first visit tothe main Hawar Islandappearsto
have been on 31 March 1938,accordingto his diaries. What can be said with-certaintyis that the
1936 list of theislands claimedby Bahrain as the HawarIslands is so defective as to lendsupport
to Qatar's suspicionthat, in that year, Bahrainas totally ignorant of the detailed composition and
location of the islands. Indeed, the Ruler of Bahrain and Belgrave were only interested in the
Hawar Islands to the extent that they might yield significant oil revenues if included in a new
concessionto be grantedby the Ruler of Bahrain. This is why Belgrave'sletter of 28 Apnl 1936
'~ernorialofBahrainAnn.261,Vol.5,p. 1110.specificallyadmitsthat the Bahrainclaim to the Hawar Islandsis being submitted"in comection
with the present negotiations for an oil concession over the temtory of Bahrain whichis not
includedin the 1925oil concession". The Courtwill have notedthat these negotiationswerebeing
kept entirelysecretfiom the Rulerof Qatar. Belgrave's letter alsoexplainshiseagerness to engage
in activities on orin relation to the Hawar Islandswhich could buttress or couldbe representedas
buttressing Bahrain'sclaim to the islands. The buildingof a fort on the main HawarIsland, the
beaconingof islets, rocks and shoalsin the area surroundingthe islands or furtherto the north, al1
are part andparce1of a major efforton the part of Bahrain fromearly 1936onwards toportraythe
Hawar group as having been Bahraini for over 150 years. It was, it has to be said, the total
ignorance ofthe Britishauthoritiesin the period between 1936and 1939aboutthe historyof Qatar
in general, and indeed about the physical geography ofthe Hawar Islands in particular, which
contributedin somemeasureto the miscarriageofjustice representedby the 1939Britishdecision
in favour of Bahrain'sclaim to theHawar Islands. This ignorancewas of coursecompounded by
the misleading observationin Lorimer that the main Hawar Islandlies "due Westof the point of
RasAburuk and about5 milesfromit".
Determinationoftheouterlimitof theterritorialsea
11.1tum now fiom the geographyof the HawarIslandsandtheir physical relationshipto the
mainland of Qatar to a discussion of how the outer limit of the territorial sea is determined.
Bahrain appears toaccept that, as regards the determinationof the outer limit of the territorialsea
or the delirnitationofthe "temtorial sea"between opposite States,the normal baselinefiom which
the breadth of the territorial seais measured is the low-water linealong the coast as marked on
large-scalechartsofficiallyrecognizedby the coastal State. Bahrainconcedesthat thisrule applies
to those parts of the coast of the Qatar peninsula that, even by Bahrain's admission,appertainto
~atar" and contends that the sarne rule applies to the coasts of the "ensemble constituting
~ahrain"" .
%fernorialof Bahrain, para. 616.
"~emorial ofBahrain, para. 617. 12. Qatar sees no reason to contest these statementsof principle, at least in so far as they
concemthe determinationof the outerlimit of thetemtorial sea. But it certainlycontinuesto deny
that "the ensemble constituting Bahrain"includesthe HawarIslands, Zubarah or any of the other
maritime "features"between Qatar and Bahrain, titleto which is claimedby Bahrain but contested
,
by Qatar. Applyingthese principles to the mainlandcoast of Qatar, it will be seen that the outer
limit of the temtorial sea appertaining tothe mainlandof Qatar would,in the period between 1936
and 1939when Qatarstill had a three-mile limit (asindeeddid Bahrain)have been the line shown
on the map now on the screen. This is a speciallypreparedmap and a copy of it is in thejudges'
folders as item No.28. Now it will beseenthat this line embraces withinwhat was the territorial
sea of Qatar in the late 1930sabout half of the land area of the main Hawar Island,the whole of
Suwadal Janubiyahand Suwadash Shamaliyah,the wholeof the three Wakurrockslyingbetween
them, the Bu Sedadrocks, the fourBu Saadaislands lyingto the south-westof Suwadal Janubiyah
and part of UmmKharurah (sometimesknown as Al Mahzoura). Lyingjust beyond a three-mile
limit so drawn (but of course well within a three-milelimit drawn from Jazirat Hawar) wouldbe
JaziratAjirah, the two islands calledAl Hajiat, Rabad ash Sharqiyah andRabad al Gharbiyah. In
other words, of the 17named islands, isletsand rocksappearingin Bahrain's1938list, al1but five
are enclosed or partly enclosed by a three-mile limit drawn from the low-water line on Qatar's
mainland coast. So indeed also is JananIsland whichof course Qatardoes not considerto be one
of the Hawar groupand whichwasin anyevent omittedfromBelgrave's1938list.
13.Now, Qatar accepts that a clear distinctionmustbe drawn behveen the determinationof
the outer limit of the temtorial sea of a Stateor other territorial entity,and the delimitationof a
maritime boundary between two States with opposite coasts. As regards the first of these two
operationsthe Courtwill recollectthat, in theAnglo-NorwegianFisheriescase, it had no difficulty
in finding,and here 1quote fromtheJudgment:
"that,for thepurpose of measuringthebreadthofthe temtorial sea, it is the low-water
mark as opposed to the high-watermark, orthe mean between the two tides, which
has generallybeen adoptedin thepracticeof states"12.
I2~isheries(UnitedKingdomv. Nonvay),I.C.J.Reports1951,p. 128.As regards the second of these two distinct operations,1 should signal that my leamed friends,
Professors Quéneudecand Salmon, will be addressing you later on the factors which the Court
should take into accountin delimitingthe maritimeboundarybetween Qatar andBahrain.
14. Sothe questionof whichislands, islets and rocksin the Hawar Islands wouldhave been
properly consideredas lying within the three-miletemtorial sea appertainingto Qatar in the late
1930smust inprinciplebe determinedby a line of three nauticalmiles drawn from the low-water
mark along the relevant coastline ofthe mainland of Qatar, and this is the line that 1 have just
shownyouon the screen; this hasveryrecentlybeen confirmedin the secondaward of the Arbitral
Tribunal of 17December 1999, in the Eritreamemen Arbitration, where it is stated (in
paragraph 133 of the Award):
"The 'normal' baselineof the temtorial sea as stated in Article 5 of the [UN]
Convention [on theLaw of the Sea]-and this again accords with long practice and
withthe well establishedcustomaryrule of the law of the sea - is 'thelow-waterline
along the Coastas marked on large scale charts officially recognisedby the coastal
State"'.
15.1should add that Britainwas particularlyill-infonned, in the period between 1936 and
1939, about the distance which separated the Hawar Islandsfrom the mainland of Qatar. No
Britishofficia1in the Gulfhad evervisited theislands,apartfromPrideauxin 1909,althoughLoch,
as Political Agent in Bahrain, had flown over them in 1934 when taking part in the RAF
reconnaissanceof Qatar, to which Mr. Shankardass had referredin his earlier presentation. Map
No. 5 oppositepage 50of the Memorialof Qatar [show: copy(itemNo. 29)injudges'folders]is
particularly rewardingin this context [demonstrate]. Before explaining why it is rewarding, 1
must clariQ one point. In its commentaryto Annex20 of its Supplemental Documents,Bahrain
accusesQatar of having prepared,asMapNo. 5,amap supposedlybased on Sheet 3 of theBahrain
map of the Hawar Islands in the 1:50,000 series, published in 1997- please note the date;
Bahrain accordingly claims that QatarMap No. 5 is inaccurate. This charge, 1 have to Say,is
demonstrably false. Qatar couldnot have used a map publishedonly in 1997to construct its Map
No. 5 which was submittedto the Court as early as 30 September 1996, with theQatar Memorial.
It obviously usedan earlier version of the same map, namely, Edition 2 of the Bahrain 1:50,000
map series,Sheet 3 (Hawar Islands),publishedin 1986. Thedifferencebetweenthe two mapsis in
anyevent marginalifthe Membersofthe Courtbear inmind thatthe lettersALWMon the BahrainMapNo. 20 (b), in the Supplemental Documents,are explainedin the legendas meaningApparent
LowWater Mark.
16. If1may revert to the QatarMap No. 5, this map shows that, at low tide, a distance of
only 250metres separates Hadd ad Dib, atthe end of the spit on the main Hawar Island, fromthe
4
apparent low-watermark off the mainlandCoast; similardistances separatepoints on the apparent
low-water markoff Suwad al Janubiyahto the south and south-east of this island from pointson
the correspondinglow-water mark off the mainland. The two distances of 150metres shown on
themap on the screenin fiont of you maynot be entirelyaccurate if the apparentlow-watermarks
shown on Edition4 of the Bahrain map of the Hawar Islandsin the 1:50,000series - this is the
one thatwas publishedin 1997- are themselves correctlydepicted, which Qataris not at present
in a position tojudge. Assumingthat they are correctly depicted,the differencesare in anyevent
rather small. In the case of the first measurement, taken due south of SuwadJanubyyah,
[demonstrate]the distance between theclosest correspondingpoints on the apparent low-water
markwidens to approximately200 metresfiom 150metres,an increase of only 50 metres. To the
south-eastof SuwadJanubiyahthe variationis more noticeable. However, it need hardlybe added
that Qatar couldhave easily chosen anothernearby position from whichto demonstratethe close
proximity of the islands to the mainland,if it had been awarethat Bahrain was about to publish a
new edition of its:50,000SeriesMapofthe Hawar Islandsin 1997 [demonstrate].Youwillnow
seehighlightedonthe screen an areawhereeventhe amendedapparentlow-watermarkinthis area
shows a channel of only 350 metres at lowtide. That is why Qatar considers that the difference
betweenthe twoeditionsof the samemapis onlymarginal.
17.The Courtwill in any event recallthat, in his keyletter of 22 April 1939,to the Political
Resident, Weightmanreported that "at low Springsit is possible (as 1am informedthough1have
not verified thisby experiment) to wade fiom the Qatar mainland to a certain pointon the main
Hawar Island in about three feet of water"I3. There can be no question about the very close
proximity of Suwadal Janubiyah to the mainland of Qatar at certain points, and from %
'3~ernorial QatarAnn.111.1V 95,7,p.497 ap. 501.Suwadal Janubiyahit should be possible to proceed dry-shod (or relatively dry-shod)to the main
Hawar Islandat verylow tide.
18.But theBritish authoritiesin the Gulfin 1938-1939 wereblind to,or at leastignorant of,
the realities of the geographical situationwith which they were confronted. They seemed to be
relying solely on the misleading statements in Lorimer and the 1916HandbookofArabia to the
effect that the main Hawar Island lies west of the point of Rasburuk and about 5miles from it.
These statementsare not in themselves inaccurate; but they do convey a thoroughly misleading
impressionwhen itis realized thatthe nearest ofthe larger Hawar Islands to themainlandof Qatar
is Suwadal Janubiyah and not the main Hawar Island (JaziratHawar). This can be seen clearly
fromthe rnapwhich 1now showto the Court, thisrnapbeing based, noton the earlier Bahrainrnap
to which 1referred,but on BahrainChart No. 5005, publishedin 1987. This rnap canbe found in
Appendix 5to theQatar Reply [showmapentitled"Distancefrom Qatar'smainlandto selected
islands" in Reply of Qatar Vol. 61. It will be seen on the screen that, paralleling the results
obtained fiom the use of Edition 2 of the 1:50,000Bahrain rnap series of the Hawar Islands, the
distance from Ras Abruq to the low-water mark off Suwadal Janubiyah is approxirnately
1,300metres - thatis to say,considerably short of 1nauticalmile. But this is not eventhe nearest
point on the mainland of Qatar to Suwad alJanubiyah: two points- here and here - lie,
according to this map, within 150metres of Suwadal Janubiyah at low tide. It will also be seen
from the rnapthat, at low tide, Suwadal Janubiyah becomeseffectivelyjoined to JaziratHawar at
one point [show]. The misleading impression conveyedby the description of the main Hawar
Island in Lorimeris reinforced when it is appreciatedthat only a distanceof 250metres separates
the southernmosttip of JaziratHawar(at Hadd adDib) fiom the mainlandof Qatar at lowtide and
that only a distanceof approximately 1,200metres separates Jazirat Hawar from the mainland of
Qatar at lowtide atthe point nowindicated [show].
19. Had the officiais in the India Office in London realized in 1939 how close to the
mainland of Qatar the Hawar Islands lay, it is questionable whether theywould have been so
enthusiastic in supporting Bahrain'sclaim of sovereignty over them. Hemingway of the India
Office at any rateseems to have had a glimmer of the significanceof the three-milelimit of the
territorial sea as regards the appurtenance of islandslying whollyor partly withinthat limit, since,in his manuscript minuteof 12May 1939,herefersto the factthat "the islandsare separatedby ...
five miles (morethanthree)of shallowwater from the mainland ..."14.Why refer to "morethan
three" unless you are aware that a three-mile limit is highly significant? But, of course,
Hemingway was thoroughly misledas to the positionon the ground since,in fact,the vast majority s
of the Hawar Islands lie within what was, in the 1930s, the outer limit of the territorial sea
appertaining to the mainland of Qatar drawn at a distance of three nautical miles from the
low-watermark alongthat Coast.
Title to islandslocated withintheterritorial seaof a State
20. Mr. President, 1 turn now to the legal principles which govemtitle to islands located
within the territorial sea of a State or other territorial entity. Qatar has gone into this at
considerablelength in Chapter 4 of its Reply,particularly Section2. One starts from consideration
of the question whether the coastal Statehas sovereignty over thetemtorial sea appertaining toit,
subject of course to a right of passage for vessels of other States, whether that right of passageis
characterizedas "innocent passage"or as "transitpassage". In Qatar's submission - and1assume
that the Court will entirely agree with this- the short and decisive answer to this question is
"Yes". Article 2, paragraph 1,of the UnitedNations Conventionon the Law of the Sea of 1982is
quite specificin statingthat the sovereigntyof a coastal Stateextends,beyondits land temtory and
intemal waters,and, in the case of an archipelagicState, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacentbelt
of sea, described as the territorial sea. Note that it is the "sovereignty" of a coastal Statewhich
extends to its temtorial sea; and that this sovereigntyextends also to the bed and subsoilof the
territorial sea. Note further that Article 121,paragraph 1, of the 1982 Conventionprovides that
every islandis entitledto its owntemtorial sea,anisland being definedas "a naturallyformedarea
of land, surroundedby water, whichis abovewaterat high tide".
21. As the territorialseaof a Stateis subjectto the sovereigntyofthat State,it follows,inthe
submission of Qatar, that any island, islet or indeed low tide elevation located whollyor partly
L
within the temtorial sea of that State is also subject to its sovereignty. This seems to be an
ineluctable consequence of the rules stated in Article 2 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention
'4~emorialof QatarAnn.111.203, ol.8p.13.which, Qatar would submit,can be taken as expressing the positionunder customaryinternational
law.
22. How then do we applythese principlesto the particularcase of the Hawar Islands? Qatar
has alreadydemonstratedthat the territorial integrityof Qatar as apoliticalentity encompassed,by
the end ofthe nineteenth centuryat the latest,the entirepeninsula together withany islandslocated
within a three-mile belt of territorial sea appertaining to the peninsula. At this time, and indeed
between 1936and 1939,both Qatar and Bahrain adhered to a three-mile lirnit for the breadth of
their respectivetemtorialseas. Had the Britishauthoritiesin the Gulf and indeedin Londonbeen
fully aware in early 1939that the great majorityof the 17islandsin the Hawar group identifiedin
Bahrain's"preliminary statement" of29 May 1938,fell whollyor partly within a three-mile limitif
it were drawnfrom Qatar's mainlandcoast at low tide (that is to Say12out ofthe 17islands),they
would surely not have decided that the islands belonged to Bahrain. Assurning that al1these
islandshad beenattributedby Britain to Qatarby virtue of their undoubtedlocation,in wholeor in
part, within a three-mile limit drawn from Qatar'smainland coast (thereby applying therelevant
principle of the inter-temporallaw, which the Court will of course recognize), each one of them
would havebeen recognizedashaving its ownthree-mile belt oftemtorial sea. It goes of course
without saying that, if a 12-mile territorial sea drawn from Qatar'smainland coast were to be
applied,it would naturallyencompass al1the HawarIslandsto whichQatarhas made reference.
Theprincipleof proximity
23. Now, Mr. President,Members of the Court, we have so far looked at the problem fiom
the point ofview of currentinternationallawwhileacknowledgingthe applicabilityof the principle
of inter-temporal law whereby a juridical fact must be appreciated in the light of the law
contemporary with it. So we have to look at the principles of internationallaw relating to title to
islands located withina three-mile limit of the temtorial sea ashose principles had developedin
the period between 1936 and1939. Here it is important to be precise in the articulation of the
relevant principles. This appliesin particular,in the submissionof Qatar, to the use of the word
"proximity". Proximity assuch, when appliedto islands, is not a root of title except, and 1 Sayexcept, in the case of islandslocated,wholly orpartly,withinthe territorial sea appertainingto the
mainlandcoast of a Stateor otherterritorial entity.
24. It is, in Qatar'ssubmission,essentialto bear thisexceptionin mindwhen consideringthe
state of international lawast existedin the late 1930s. At this point in time,international lawyers
k
had available to themthe guidancecontainedin the importantAward of JudgeHuber in the Island
of Palmas arbitration. For our purposes,the key passagein this Award is the followingand 1 am
sorryto Saythat 1 have tocite it in full:
"Although States have in certain circumstances maintained that islands
relatively close to their shores belonged to them in virtue of their geographical
situation,it is impossibleto show the existenceof a rule of positive internationallaw
to the effect that islands situatedoutside temtorial waters should belong to a State
from the mere factthat its temtory forms the terrafirma (nearest continentor island
of considerable size)"15
Now, the Court would surely note that this negative propositionapplies only to islands situated
outsideterritorialwaters; it doesnot applyto islandssituatedwithintemtorial waters.
25. Indeed,it is here,in relationto islands situatedcloseto the territoryof a Statebutside
the territorial sea appertainingto the mainland coast of that State at any particular time, that the
principle of proximity has a significantrole to play. The principle arguably hadits origin in the
so-called "portico doctrine" whichwas developed in the mid-nineteenth centq as a means of
attributing sovereigntyover small islands andislets imrnediatelyoff a coastbut falling within the
attraction of the mainland. The "portico doctrine" itselfcan be said to have been based on the
judgment of Sir William Scott (later Lord Stowell) in the case of TheAnnain 1805, details of
which have been given at paragraph4.40 of the Reply of Qatar. Sir William Scott in giving
judgment in TheAnna, drew attention to the dangers to thesecurity of the United States which
would unquestionably arise if the islands in question were not acknowledgedto appertainto the
United States; and the Court will undoubtedly recallthat the raison d'être of the notion of the
territorial sea was the perceived need to protect thefundamentalsecurity interests of the coastal
State, and that is a consideration which still applies today. Buildingupon Sir William Scott's
judgment in TheAnna,later generationsof internationallawyers developed the"porticodoctrine";
and, as the Court willbe aware fromthe content ofparagraphs 4.40to 4.50 of the Qatar Reply, the
15~ounter-~emoriaolfQataAnn.11.67,Vol.2,p. 371."portico doctrine" provided a means of resolving some quite serious disputes which arosein the
nineteenth century as regards the outer limit of the territorial sea of a State or colony having a
fiinge or outer carapace of rocks, islets or islands. The "portico doctrine", combined with the
principle of naturaland physical unityof island groups, has,much more recently,been referred to
with approval by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Eritrea/Yemencase in paragraphs460 to 463 of its
first Awardof 9 October 1998.
26. The Court will note that noreferenceis madeto the "porticodoctrine"by Weightmanor
indeed by other oEcials in London in 1939 when seeking to come to a final decision on the
conflicting claims of Qatar and Bahrain to the HawarIslands. Strangely, however, thereis no
evidence that any of the legal advisers in the Foreign Office were consultedat this time on the
merits of the dispute,as opposed tothe proceduresbywhich it shouldbe resolved.
27. Qataraccordingly invokesthe authority ofthe "porticodoctrine" consideredin the light
of the authoritative pronouncementsby Fitzmaurice,Waldock, Gide1and JudgeLevi Cameiro, to
which reference is made at paragraphs4.22 to 4.26 of the Qatar Reply, to sustain its title to the
entire collectivity of the Hawar Islands. That collectivity includesthose islands which may lie
marginallyoutsidea three-milelimit drawnfromthe low-watermark on Qatar'smainlandcoastbut
well withinwhat is now (in the year 2000) the outer limit of Qatar's12mile temtorial sea, drawn
fromthat low-watermark.
28. The positivecase for Qatar's sovereignty over the Hawar Islands accordingly takes into
account the fact that the great majority of the islands are physically located within a three-mile
limit drawn fromthe low-water markon Qatar's mainlandcoast and therefore are tobe considered
as an integral part of Qatar'sterritory. For this reason alone they must surely be considered to
appertain to Qatar. The remaining islands in the Hawar group which 1 have identified, are, in
Qatar's submission, tobe considered equally to appertainto Qatar by virtue of the principle of
proximity as properly understood. That pnnciple embracesthe principle of natural and physical
unity of island groups as recently endorsed, subject to certain necessary qualifications,by the
Arbitral Tribunal's Award of 9 October1998, in the Eritredemen case. Indeed, the Arbitral
Tribunalinthatcasehad this to Sayin its firstAwardof 9 October1998: "Thereis a strongpresumptionthat islandswithinthe twelve-milecoastal belt
willbelongto the coastal state, unless thereisfull'-establish ease to the contrary
(as, forexample,inthe caseofthe Channel~slands)."'~
1sthe Courtsatisfied - can it be satisfi-d that Bahrain had,by 193611937a hlly-established
case for sovereigntyoverthe HawarIslands? Qataris clearthat the answercan onlybe "No",and
Qatar intendsto demonstratethisinits furtherpresentations. t
Other historical evidence
29.Butthereis other evidenceof a historical nature which supports atar'stitletothe Hawar
Islands,and to which 1wouldnow wishto refer. Thereis first of al1the evidencewhich one can
derive from the entries in Lorimer'sGazetteer of the Persian Gu& Oman and Central Arabia,
originally published in 1908 and 1915. It is of course well known that the entry in Lorimer
covering themain Hawar Island (Jazirat Hawar) and some other islandsand islets in the Hawar
group,notably Ajirah,Rubadhand Suwad,appearsinthegeographicaland statisticalvolume ofthe
publicationunderthe heading"WestSideof Qatar". The entry for JaziraH t awarreadsas follows:
"About 10mileslong, northand south,and roughly parallelto the Qatarcoast.
There areno wells, but there is a cistem to hold rainwater builtby the Dawasirof
Zallaqin Bahrain,who havehousesat two placesonthe island anduse theminwinter
as shootingboxes. Fishermenalso frequentHawar."
The separateentriesfor Ajirah,Rubadhand Suwadal1declarethat these islands lack fiesh water;
andJananIsland,which alsohas aseparateentry,is statedtobe "waterless". But,ofcourse,al1the
other entriesappearing in thispublicationunderthe heading"WestSide of Qatar" relateto capes,
bedouin camping places, towers, desertedvillages and hills, on the mainland of Qatar. The
Bahrainiargumentthat thispassage fromLonmer,whichwasmoreor less copiedintheHandbook
ofArabia of 1916issuedby theBritishAdmiralty,is simplypresenting ageographicalfact,is weak
andunconvincing. The factis that, as Mr. Shankardasshas alreadyshownus this moming, in his
presentationon the limitedextentof Bahrain,the Hawar Islands areviewed as being an integral
part of the west side of Qatar and ashaving no connectionwith Bahrain; andthis conclusionis
stronglyreinforced when it is realizedthat no reference atal1is madeto the HawarIslandsin the 1
article on the Bahrain Principality(as distinct from the article on Bahrain Island) which also
I6~wardp,ara.474.appearsin ~orimer". 1have causedto be put in yourfoldersthis moming, Mr.President,Members
of the Court, as itemNo. 31, the articleon the BahrainPrincipalitywhich appearsinLorimer. It is
prefaced by a note which States: "The article on the Bahrain Principality may be consulted in
regard to al1matters not dealt with above which concemBahrain Island." A footnote to the title
"BahrainPrincipality" explains:
"Thisleadingarticleonthe Bahrain principalityand the minorarticleson places
in the sarneare founded chieflyupon systematicand careful investigationsmade on
the spot duringthe years 1904-1905 ... The inquiry properwas begun by the writer
on tour in Bahrain early in 1905; but it was canied out chiefly by Lieutenant
C. H.Gabriel, I.A.,whopersonally travelled overthe greaterpart of the islandsandby
CaptainF.B. Prideaux, PoliticalAgent in Bahrain,who suppliedvery full information
regardingal1places inhisjuri~diction."'~
Thus, this article on the BahrainPrincipality in Lorimer'sGazetteer embodies al1the information
available to the most knowledgeableBritish authorities on the Gulf between the years 1904to
1907. It willbe recalledthatLorimerdescribes"thepresentsheikhdomof Bahrain"(as of 1905)as
consistingof:
"the archipelago formedby the Bahrain, Muharraq,Umm Na'asan, Sitrah and Nabi
Salih islandsand by a nurnberof lesser isletsand rocks which are enurneratedin the
articles upon the island... Connectedwith the sovereignty of Bahrain, or possibly
appertaining to the Shaikh as hereditary persona1property, are certain ill-defmed
rights upon the mainlandof Qatar, at present(1905) under discussion. Whatever the
nature or extent of theserightsour attentionwill beconfined, in the present article,to
the undisputedinsularpossessionsof the ~haikh."'~
30. Now, the reference to "certain ill-defmed rightsupon the mainland of Qatar" must be
taken as a reference tothe Sheikhof Bahrain'sclaimedrights in or in relation to Zubarah. So one
would assumethat if, as Bahrainasserts, membersofthe Dowasir tnbe had beenoccupying atleast
the main HawarIslandon behalfofthe SheikhofBahrain sincebefore 1800,andif, as Bahrainalso
claims,the authorityof Sheikh Jassimbin Thanididnot extendto the westCoast- of the mainlandof
Qatar at this time, that is to Say1908,the HawarIslands would certainly be included amongthe
"undisputed insular possessions" ofthe Sheikhof Bahrainto which Lorimerrefers. But of course
Lorimer makes no mention whatsoever of the HawarIslands in this article on the Bahrain
Principality. Under the heading "Populationand tribes" he lists the islands of the Principal-ty
"~emorial ofQatar,Ann.11., ol3,p.87.
"lbid.
Iglbia d.,88.Bahrain, Muharraq,UmmNa'asan,Nabi Salihand Sitrah - withtheir main towns and population
divided into Sunni andShiah townspeople and Sunniand Shiah villagers. Lorimer even includes
"UmmNa'asan" in these lists, although giving a "Nil" retum under this head for towns,
townspeople, villages and villagers. This is presurnably because, at least at this tirne,
'r
Umm Na'asanwas uninhabited. So one would surely anticipate that,if the Bahrainiversion of the
history of the HawarIslands were accurate, therewould beat least a mentionof thernin Lorirner's
article on the Bahrain Principality. After al1Bahrain can hardly contend that the Hawar Islands
were excluded from thisdescriptionbecausethe Sheikh'spossessionofthem at thistime was being
disputed by the Ruler of Qatar, since, as my colleague Ms Pilkington has already explained
yesterday,the Bahrainiversion of history falsely seeksto relegate the Al-Thani chiefs of Qatar at
this timeto mere pearlmerchants in Doha.
31.Qatardoesnot dispute the fact thatPndeauxmade a visitto the main HawarIslandin the
second half of March 1909, as is proved by his manuscript letter to SirPercy Cox of
20 March 1909 and hismore official despatch to the PoliticalResidentof 4 April 1909~'. But, of
course, Qatar does not accept the interpretation which Bahrain seeks toput on these two letters as
Mr. Shankardasswill show in his future presentationon Bahrain's allegedeffectivitésprior to 1936.
Indeed, Qatar is quite convinced that Prideaux'sletter to the Political Resident of 4 Apnl 1909
offersno evidencewhatsoever to support a claim to theHawarIslandsby the Rulerof Bahrain for
the detailed reasonswhich will be spelt outto the Courtby Mr.Shankardass.
32. Above and beyond the well-nigh decisive consideration that,in 1939,the great majority
of the Hawar Islandswere located wholly or partially within a three-mile limit drawn from the
low-water mark on the mainland coast of Qatar, is other evidence. Thisincludes the evidence to
which Mr. Shankardasswill draw attentionin a laterpresentationand which demonstratesthat the
Ruler of Bahrain never asserted title to the islands until 1936and, in particular, did not assert title
to them in 1909when virtually invited todo soby thethen Bntish Political Agent, Prideaux.
33. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Mr. Shankardasshas already addressed you this
moming on the limited extent of Bahrain as a political entity,drawing inter alia on Iranian and
- p
2%femoriaol Qata r,nns.111.a1ndII5.3Vol.6,pp.233and 245.Turkish sources. The Court will recall that that presentation covered inter alia specific
documentary evidence of official British recognition in the year 1933, in the context of the
beginning of the oil concession negotiationscoveringBahrain'sso-called "unallottedarea",that the
Hawar Islandsbelonged to Qatarand not to Bahrain. 1wouldask the Courtto pay closeattention
to thisclearand compellingevidence,whichdoesnotappearto have been lookedat by either Loch
or Fowle in 1936 when Belgrave first advanced a claim by the Ruler of Bahrain to the Hawar
Islands. Itis of course true that Loch,in his letterto the Political Resident,Fowle, of 6 May 1936,
qualifiedhisview that therewas "real substance"in the Bahrainclaim to Hawarby sayingthat this
was "subjectto any past correspondencewhichis not availabletome". Lochindeedmay have had
a hazy recollectionof his own exchangesof lettersandtelegrarnswith the Colonial Officeand the
India Office in London in the months of July and August1933, when he, Loch, was Acting
Political Resident in Bushire in the temporary absence of Fowle; this would explain why the
earlier correspondence wasnot available to him in 1936- because it was in Bushire and not in
Bahrain.
34. This evidence, dating fiom 1933, of officia1British recognitionthat the Hawar Islands
appertained toQatar and not to Bahrainis furtherbuttressedby events in 1934. Thiswas the year
in whichthe RAFwished to cany out an aerial reconnaissanceofQatarin anticipationof a possible
British guaranteeto the Ruler of Qatar against a serious and unprovoked attack against his land
territories from, it would seem, Saudi Arabia. The reconnaissance was duly carried out on
9 May 1934,after permission forthe overfiightof his territory hadbeen sought and received fiom
the Ruler of Qatar,butnotfrom theRulerof Bahrain.
35.The significanceof thisreconnaissanceis that theBritish authorities sought and obtained
permissionfiom the Ruler of Qatarfor an overfiightof Qatariterritory, includingthemainHawar
Island. Theydid not seek, and they did not evenconsiderseeking, any such permission fromthe
Ruler of Bahrain. Their conduct is consistent only with the conclusion that, at this tirne, they
acknowledgedthe Ruler of Qatar to have sovereigntyover the Hawar Islands. Loch specifically
draws attentionin his report on the reconnaissance tothe care taken to ensure that the RAFflying
boats undertakingthis reconnaissancedid not overfly Zakhnuniyah. It is therefore inconceivablethat he wouldnot have taken the sameprecaution with respect to Hawarif he had beenconvinced
atthistime, in 1934,that Hawarwas underthe sovereigntyof Bahrain.
36. There is in addition- and Mr. Shankardass has already pointed this outin his earlier
presentationthis moming - the evidence to be gleaned fromthe wording of the oil concession
which the Rulerof Qatar grantedto the Anglo-PersianOil Company (APOC)in 1935. The Court
will recall that,by Article 1of this Concession,APOC was given the sole right "throughout the
principality of Qatr,to explore, to prospect, to drill for and toctand to shipand to export and
the right to refine and sel1petroleum and natural gases ..." under certain defined conditions.
Article2 of the ConcessionAgreementgrantedthe Companythe right to operatein any part of the
State of Qatar,with certain exceptionsrelating to religious landsand buildings. Ithen went on to
declare that: "The State of Qatr means the whole area overwhich the Shaikhrules and which is
marked on the north of the line drawnon the rnap attached to this ~~reement."~' 1apologize for
showingthe Courtagain the rnap whichthey would alreadyhave seen this moming, but 1think it
would just be helpfulifwe couldshowit again for afewminutes.
[Show rnap attached to the Qatar Concession Agreement at Memorial of Qatar, Vol.6,
p. 529.1
37. As the Court will see, this map, which is now shown on the screen, and to which
Mr. Shankardasshas already referred,is a fairly simplesketchrnap which does not show much in
the way of geographicaldetail. But it does showJaziratHawar(indicatedby an arrow) and Rabad
Ash Sharqiyah(alsoindicatedby anarrow),twoof theHawarIslands,aswell as,apparently,Janan
island. TheCourtwill notethat the signatures ofthe Ruler andof Mr. Mylles,representingAPOC,
are affixedon the rnap behveenBahrainIsland and the HawarIslandsand this is obviously a clear
attemptto differentiateBahrainIslandfrom the Qatar peninsula,includingthe Hawar Islands. The
argumentput forwardby certain British officials in the 1930s,that the presence ofBahrain Island
on this sketchrnapnegativesany implication tobe drawn fromit that the HawarIslands belong to
Qatar is accordingly thoroughlyweak and indeed wholly unconvincing. Thesketch rnap clearly
showsthose HawarIslandswhich itidentifiesas appertainingtoQatar and as being separatedfrom
*'~emonalof QatarAnn. 111.9, ol.6p. 507.BahrainIsland. There canbe no questionbut thatthe Qatar oil concession signedon 17May 1935
was intendedto apply to the Hawar Islandsas wellas to the whole ofthe peninsulaof Qatarto the
northofthe line drawnonthe map attachedto the Agreement(butobviouslythe concession didnot
apply to BahrainIsland).
38. Finally, theCourt willalso wish to be reminded that Rende1of the Foreign Office(who
laterbecame Sir GeorgeRendel)gave expressionat the end of 1937to his strong doubts about the
"provisional decision"of the British Govemmentin 1936 that Hawarshould be regarded, on the
evidence then available,as appertainingto Bahrain. Rende1was veryfarniliarwith the Gulfregion,
andin a minuteof 30December 1937,to which attentionhas alreadybeen drawn,he expresseshis
regret that thendia Officewent so far as they seemto have donein allottingthe HawarIslands to
Bahrain. Rende1points out that the Hawar Islands are obviously,fi-omthe geographicalpoint of
view, apart of Qatar,andcommentsthat interests,as well as geography,oughtto have led theIndia
Office toallocatethem to Qatar. Rendel'scomment,in this minute composed atthe end of 1937,is
as cogent todayas when it was first expressed; andno real answer tothe point which he makes is
forthcoming fiom the BritishArchivesor indeed from anywhereelse.
39. Mr.President,Membersof the Court,1would concludeby sumrnarizingQatar's positive
casefor sovereignty overtheHawar Islandsin the followingterms. Qatar claimsan originaltitle to
the HawarIslands on the groundthat the greatmajority of them lie within a three-milelimit drawn
fromthe low-watermarkon Qatar's mainlandcoast, and the remainderon the basis ofthe principle
ofproximityas properly understood; andontwo furthergrounds whichsupport andsustainQatar's
claim of title:
(1) that the historical evidence, including therevealing history of the oil concessions, some of
whichwill be reviewed at a later stagebyMr. Shankardass,fullysubstantiatesQatar's claimof
titleto the Hawar Islands; and
(2) that the map evidence which Qatar producedwith its Reply overwhelminglyconfirms, as a
matterof general repute,the temtorial integrityof Qatar and the sovereigntyof its Ruler over
the islands.
40. Mr. President, Members ofthe Court, this concludes my presentation thismoming. 1
thankyou al1very muchforthe carefùl attentionwhich you havepaidto my remarks and,as 1havealready drawn attention briefly to the other historical evidence upon which Qatar's title tothe
HawarIslands is based, 1wouldask you, Mr.President,if you wouldbe good enough next to give
the floor tor. Bundywhowillnow review the map evidencewhichso strikinglyconfirmsQatar's
case,but as1note that thetime is now aboutfiveminutes to oneo'clock,you may care, in fact, to h
let Mr.Bundytake the floor tomorrowmoming.
The PRESIDENT: Thankyou very much, Sir Ian. La séancede la Cour est levée. Nous
reprendronsdemain à 10heures.
L'audienceestlevée à 13heures.
Public sitting held on Tuesday 30 May 2000, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding