Qatar's comments on Bahrain's answers to the questions asked by Judges Parra-Aranguren and Kooijmans - Qatar's request to produce four new documents

FRERE<AIOLMELEY 141004
01/08 '00 16:52 FAX0144347111
0144347111

1 August 2000

QATAR'S COMMENTS ON BARRAIN'S ANSWER OF 13 JUL Y 2000 TO THE

QUESTION POSED BY JlJDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN ON 29 JUNE 2000

CONCERNING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF ZUBARAH

1. General Remarks

A. ZUbarah is not the so-called ''Zubarabregion"

L Bahrain has not answered the question of "what is the extent and what are the

territorial limits of Zubarah?'' (emphasis added). As Qatar nored in its own answer to this

question, it is "Zubarah'' that is the subject matter of the present proceedings before the Court.

Itmay be noted thatBahrain's own official Annual Report for the year March 1.937 - February

1938 states: ''... Zubara,the subject of this quarre!, is a place of no apparent value. The town

is entirely in ruins ..• " In addition, the Agreement of June 1944 between the Rulers of Qatar

and Bahrain provided that "[t]he Ruler of Qatar undertakes that Zubarah will remain without

anything being done in it wbich did not exist .in the past. This is .from consideration and

reverence to Al Khalifab.... •All of this referred to the town of Zubarah as described in

Qatar's reply to Judge Parra-Aranguren's question. There was no question at that time of

defining a "Zubarah region"; yet Bahrain devotes the greater part of its reply to showing what

are the limits of the "Zubarah region". In Qatar's submission thisisentirely irrelevant.

2. Further confirmation of the extent of Zubarah, and of the British view of the extent of

Zubarah, is to be found in a British chart prepared on the basis of a survey by H.M. Surveying

Ships Owen and Daltyrnple in 1950 and 195P. That chart, of which a copy of the relevanr

1
2QR, Anncx:IU.S9,Vol. 3,p.361, ap.368; cmphasis added.
3QM, Annex lll.240, Vol. 8, p. 183.
QM, Anncx IV.202. Vol. 11, p. 9. 01/08 '00 16:52 FAX0144347111 FRERE(410LMELEY 141005
0144347111

-2-

extract is attached hereto4, clea.rly shows Zubarah as covering only the area identified as

Zubarah on Map No. 10 in Qatar's MemoriaL

3. Not once, however, does Bahrain state what are the Jimits of the town of Zubarah. Its

who le argument is devoted to showing that the concept of Zubarah relates toa region that

expands and contracts with each different description: the "region" is describedin nine

separate paragraphs (paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18), none ofwhlch provides the
same description. To taleea few examples: while Lisha and Halwan (Hulwan) arementioned 7

times (paragraphs 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16),Ain Muhan1med is mentioned only twice

(paragra.phs 6 and 13), Umm al Ghubur and Al Maharaqa twice (at paragraphs 1 and 18 and

13 and 18, respectively), and Rakaiyat and Al Hiddeyyah only once (paragraphs 6 and 12,

respectively), etc. Further examples of this shiftîng geograpwillbe mentioned below, at

paragraph 7,in relation to Balrrain's paragraphs 6 and 7.

Bahrai.ohas thus not given a direct answer to Judge Parra-Aranguren's question, but has

... _ d~§ct.i area_t~aai:ties to assimilate to-Zubarah,-which in-fact-covarwide expanse of

land with varying contours.

B. The so-ca11ed"Zubarah region" as a tribal territorx

4. Bahrain now tries to defme the outer limits of what it caUs the "Zubarah region" as a

function of its frequentation by the Naim tribe and of that tribe's ties of allegiance with the

Ruler of Bahrain (paragraphs 3-6, 8-12 and 18-19). In ether words. Bab.rain has tak.en

advantage of a question thatwas purely geographical,inorder to reopen an argument on the

merits: the argument of the tribal ties of allegiance of the Naim witb. the Ruler of Bahrain.

Clearly, Bahrain can put forward no ether basis for its claim, and seeks, wirhout any basis in

fact, to demonstrate the territorial extent of Zubarah in relation to the localities frequented by

rheNaim.

JA copy ofthewhole charis bcing deposired witb the RegistrCourt,in accordancwithArticle 50,
paragraph2oftheRulesofCourr.01/08 '00 16:53 FAX 0144347111 FRERE(AIOLMELEY 14006

0144347111

-3-

S. Qatar has aJready demonstrated that there is no foundation whatsoever for the criterion

ofties of allegiance of the Naim, claimed by Bahrain as the basis of its tirle to Zubarah or the

surrounding area. This demonstration was made by Qarar in irs written pleadingss and was

summarised during the oral pleadings • As Qatar emphasised in the second round of oral

pleadings B,brain has never provided a serions response to any ofthese arguments.

6. Qatar will not repeat here everything that it has already said which shows that the

argument of the tribal allegiance of the Naim, or of the Al-Jabr section alone, is of no valye

whatsoever in establishing any sovereign title of Babrain over Zubarah or its surrounding

area, and that therefore such an argument could not be used as a criterion for delimiting a

tenitocy that, in any event, was frequented by many Na.im tribal sections other than the Al­

Jabr and indeed by tribes other than the Naim".

There can therefore be no question of attempting to define the limits of Zubarah on the basis

of ties of allegiance which, moreover, we(e non-existent as such with regard to the Naim tribe.

Such ties concemed only one section of the tribe - the Al-Jahr - and even with regard to that

section, the criterion of ties of aJlegia:Îlceis inoperative since, in addition to ail that bas

already been said as to the weakness of a claim based on allegiance, it will be recalled that, on

13 July 1937, the Chief of the Al·Jabr acknowledged "that he had entered into an agreement

with the Ruler of Qatar and that he had agreed to obey the laws of Qatar while he resided in

II. Specifie Comments

7_ In order to avoid unnecessary repetition of argument, Qatar has made no attempt in

these comments to refute every point made by Bahrain. Therefore, absence of comment

cannot be taken as implying acceptance by Qatar of any of the assertions and arguments put

forward in Bahrain's answer to Judge Parra-Aranguren's question.

5See, QCM, paras. 5.4.2-5.62and QR. paras. 6.30-6.58.
~See. CR 2000/9, pp. 19-25, paras. 39-54.
1
8 CR2000/19, p. 11, para. 39.
On these particular poinsee,QCM, paras. 5.11 and 5.53-5.57; BM, Annex 229, Vol. 4, p. 983QR, para.
6.31; CR2000/9, p. 23, para. 51.
9 QM, Annex 1U.l38.•Vol. 7, p. 191.01/08 '00 16:53 FAX0144347111 FRERE<AIOLMELEY 140107

0144347111

At this stage of the proceedings, Qatar wishes simply ta make a few comments on certain

statements made by Babrain. The paragraph numbers below correspond ta the paragraph

numbers in Bahrain'.sanswer.

Paragraph 1. This paragraph uses a technique tbat Bahrain is very fond of using in its

arguments: însinuating that its territory is minuscule in comparison with Qatar's, and that its

claim ta Zubarah does not in fact real!y caver very much: "slightly more than one percent of
10
Qatar's land territory''•The idea of a lilliputian State ofBahrain compared with a huge State

of Qatar also appeared in the opening speech by the Agent of Bahrain 1• Regardless of the

absurd nature of this comparison - Bahrain and Qatar are beth very srnall States - and

although Babrain is even smaller than Qatar in tenus of suzface area, the legal issue of

Zubarah has quite clearly noth:ing tc do with its comparative size. Judge Parra·Aranguren's

question concemed only the determination of the precise lirnits of the place called ''Zubarah",

and this isail that was required.

:e_aragra:ph3. Bah:rain alleges that ''theAl-R.aim;anbranch of the Naim defected to the

Ruler of Qatar and went tc Doha and 1ts environs". Bahrain has however cited no reference tc

prove tb.atthe whole of the Al-Ramzan section left the Zubarah area for Doha.

Paragraph_.fi.Bahrain states that ''LorimerobseiVed that t:hesite [of Zubarah] ... was

surrounded by dependent forts 'within.a radius of 7 miles' [15.4 kilometres] from the main

town". Lorimer does not however use the ward "dependent'' in relation to these forts; and it

may be observed in passing that 7 miles corresponds ta 11.3 kilometres, not 15.4. More

signi.ficantly, what Babrain does not say is that at the time (a little before 1908) Lorimer had

noted that these forts were :inruins and that the places were deserted, witb the exception of

Thagab, which was :frequentedby people from Khor Hassan, who were Kibisa, not Naim ~.

10Bahrain's calcularion, Hke its calculation of the relative surface area of the I:Iawar islands, is wrong. For the

Hawar islands. Bahrain has smted that they rcpresent one-d1ird of13ahrain's rerritory (CR 2000/11, p. 8, para. .S),
whereas in J'actthey represent only about 7.5 % of the territory byBah.rain. Babrain new says that its
claim to Zubarah rcpresems "slightly more th3Il one per cent of Qatar's land territory'', whereaitin fact
represents approximately 1.75%.
11CR 2000/11, p. S, paras. 4-7.
lLorimer, in QM, Annex 11.4,Vol. 3, p. 109, at p. 138; and BM, Annex 74, Vol. 3, p. 371, at p. 398.01/08 '00 16:54 FAX-0144347111 FRERE<AIOLMELEY 141008

0144347111

-5-

Paragrapb 7. This paragraph contains a further example of misrepresentation by

Bahrain. The statement of the Political Agent that is cited in this paragraph was qualified by

the words "For the purpose of this note"'\ and it is apparent from an earlier passage in the

same annex that the statcment was bascd upon what the Naim had told the Political AgentH_

Moreover, the "Zubarah area" was described, by the Naim themselves, as being "bound on the

north by Faraihah and on the south by Rubaijah" (AI Rubayqan on the map attached ro

Bahrain's answer as Ann.ex 1). It will be appreciated that this covers a much smaller area than

the area now claimed by Bahrain as the "Zubarah region". This is further confirmation that the

so-called "Zubarah region" is sheer fantasy on the part ofBahrain.

Paragraph 8. Bahrain also mentions an application for registration with the Bahrain

land registry of a bouse in Lisha 1• Qatar had already pointed out in its oTalpleadings that

there were no other such applications and that there is nothi.o.g to·.i.o.dicatewhether the

16
application was accepted •During its second round of pleadings, Bahrain simply responded
17
that niln'y avait pas de cadastre à Zubarah ily a un siècleu(sic) •In its answer to Judge Parra­

Aranguren's question., Bahrain now returns to this application for registr w hichioo~curred

not a century ago, but on 23 April 1937 u.It must therefore be reiterated that the fact that there

was only ever one single application, and that it appears not to bave been followed up,

confinns that Bahrain perfouned no acts of administration in the area itclaims as Zubarah,

19
given that it had established a land registry for its territory at the beginning of the 1930s•

P.aragraphs 8. 12 and 1 8. Bahrain refers to witness statements by private persons: the

Court will be weil aware of the value to be attributed to statements favourable to one of the

parties to a case, when such statements are made by nationals ofthat party.

1JBM. Anncx 126, Vol. 3, p652,ar p. 665.
15See, ibid., at p. 654.
BM, Annex 118, Vol. 3,p.638.
lbCR 2000/18,p. 54, para. 25.
17Qatar'stranslation: ''therewas no land registry at Zubarah a century ago"; CR 2000/22, p. 54, para. 10.
18
19BM, Annex 11S,Vol. 3, p638.
BM, Anncx 227, VoL 4, p. 968. 01/08 '00 16:54 FAX0144347111 FRERE(.liOLMELEY !4 109

0144347111

- 6-

Eara,graph 14. Bahrain states that "in the context of the 1944settlement negotiations

between Bahrain and Qatar, ... the Political Agent proposed that the historical claims of the

Al-Khalifa to the forts at the wells of UrrunEl" Ma, Al Naman, Al Lisha, Halwan [Hulwan],

Umm Sika [Masarehah] and Al Furiha [Faraihah], ali ringing the Zubarah area, be

recogrrised". What Babrain omits ta mention is that the Political Agent proposed that such

forts should be 'thepersona) property of the Al Khalifah" and that the Ruler of Bahrain "shall

have no claim or ri.ghtwhatsoever ta the ground" in the area between such forts and the ruins

ofZubarah 2•In the event, of course, the agreement that was actually signed sorne four months

laŒrmade no provision for any such rights of persan al propertyz1•

Parag:raph 19. Bahrain states, on the basis of a map drawn up by Ms. A. Montigny­

Kozlowska, that the Al-Jabr "were the predominant branch of the Naim in the Zubarah

region". Qatar has however already shown in its Counter-Memorial that this statement is

incorrect:u.

... ~Parawaphsl5and Jo..The documents cited inthese paragraphs are again not evidence

of a territorial claim by the Ruler of Bahrain over the localities that are mentioned, but

concem rather claims of private property rights and .freedomof movement. Moreover, Bahrain

has failed ta mention that in his note ofNovember 1946, cited by Bahrain in paragraph 15, the

Political Agent referred ta his own opinion that the Ruler of Bahrain "had no rights

whatsoever in Qatar or Zubara Zl.

* * *

Qatar regrets that ithas been necessary ta go into such detail in the above comments, but it

felt obliged ta do sa, given the nature of Bahrain's answer to the question of Judge Parra-

Aranguren.

2BM, Anncx 166, Vol.4, p. 751.
21
BM, Anne11:167, VoL 4,p.752/753.
~QCM,para. 5.56.
:BM, Aru1ex 182, Vol. 4p.790. 01/08 '00 16:55 FAX 0144347111 FRERE<AIOLMELEY @010

'......."';"'

f.{...;.~"''"

. ;

;,
1
..~:l,"'i;, .4:"~~~" ~
:.. .;. .:=··&~.•z•..t. .... ~

... .01/08 '00 16:55 FAX0144347111 FRERE<AIOUfELEY 141011

0144347111

1 August 2000

QATAR'S COMMENTS ON BAHRAIN'S ANSWER TO JUDGE KOOIJMANS'

QUESTIONS

Only the first two sentences of Bahrain's response to Judge Kooijmans' questions deal with

those questions.

In this respect, Qatar takes note of Babrain's confirmation (a) that, to date, Bahrain has not

specified baselines for the determinationof the outer limits of its territorial sea, and (b) that

Bahrain has not produced maps or charts which reflect such baselines.

The remainder of Bahrain's response is devoted to argument on the merlts relating to its

maritime claim presented to the Court. Althougb. rhat part of its response is therefore

irrelevant in relation to Judge Kooijmans' questions, Qatar feels obliged to make the following

two remarks.

First, with regardto the placing of beacons and markers on islands and low-tide elevations in

the 1930s, Qatar has already shown that such beaconing and marking has no implications as to
2
sovereignty', aswas recently confim1ed by the fi.rsAward in the Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration•

Second, conceming Bahraini coastguard patrols to the east of what Bahrain now claims as

basepoints, Qatar has previously shawn that 51.1chpatrols are not by themselves evidence of

sovereignty. This is why, in the proceedings before the Court, Qatar refrained from drawing

the Court's attention to the evidence tb.atir had filed which demonstrares that its o-wnnaval

forces and coastguards patro1in these waters~.

1
See.Q.M, paras. 6.4erseq.;QCM, para. 6.21; CR 2000/5, pp. 39-40, para. 22; CR 2000/9, pp. 58-59,
para. 54.
~A ward, 9 October 1998, para. 328. This was also the position takc.:n,on 5 May 1986, by the Mediator between
the Parties to the present case in response to a complaim by the Amir of Qatar of 30 April 1986 (QMJA, Annex
JI.l2, Vonr,p. 63,at pp65and 68).
3QCM. para. 6.35; CR 2000/5, p. 40, para. 22.
4See, for example, QM, Appendix l, Vol. 14, pp. 23-32,38-72, 74-79 and 87-99. 01/08 '00 16:56 FAX0144347111 FRERE<AIOLMELEY Annex 3 to OB 2000/61

0144347111

Agent of the State of Qatar before the

International Court of Justice

H.E. Mr. Philippe CouvTeur
Registrar

International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
The Netherlands

1August 2000

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

Sir,

lnhis letterdated13 July2000, H.E. the Agent of theStateofBahrai.n transmitted totheCourt

• Babrain'scomments on Qatar'sresponses to Judge Vereshchetin'squestions.

At paragraph5 of Bahrain'scomments on Question 2, conceming the meaning of ''Bahrainand its
Dependencies", Bah.rainmade the new assertion that "passports issued byahrain from the late 1950's

unril1971were headed 'Govemrnentof Bahrain andDependencies'".Babrainmade that assertion
without anysupporting evidence and without having requestedthe right to produce new evidence.Had
Bahrain requested authorization to produce evidenceto supportits new assertion, Qatar wouldhave

been in aposition alsoto file evidence in this regard, at the time of its .fi.lingofits own com.mentson
Bahrain'sresponses to Judge Vereshchetin's questions.

Consequently. and pursuant to Article 56 of theRules of Court, Qatar hereby requests authorizatîonro

produce fournew documents, being examples ofpassports issued in the l950s by "Qatar Stateand
Dependencies", which are a further indication ofQatars independent international statu.sat the Aime.
copy ofthe relevant extract from each passport is attached herinoaccordancewith Article 56,
paragraph 1of the Rules of Court, and I hereby certify that these are true copies.

Please accept,ir, theassurance ofmy hîghest consideration.

/ -j ;-r . j..L·(t-_9"ë, /_~.-__.,_

Dr. Abdullah bin Abdulatif Al-Muslernani
Agent of the State oQa~j
--~ [/

c/o Embassy of the State of Qatar. 1 South Audley SLondonW1Y SDQ
Tet (44.171) 493 22 00- r=ax(44.171) 493 26 61 01/08'00 16:56 FAX0144347111 FRERE<AIOLMELEY 141013
0144347111

1.

r:--J'J,-.;r,
.......,..
Thipaperc~ ~~ it·~p·i~g~
PASSPORT ..;..J'j~

_}-Jt jtr,· .. Qatar State and
Dependencies.

PASSPORT To ali whom it may -: 1~~ ~-t.f J$-1
concern :-
QATAR STATE
Greeting.
AND Honourable frlends, the
DEPENDE;NCIES Offic:sfthe GPowers,rl.,OIA. ;.J..:.".,J
\ < ----- ether Kingdoms aaread,.,.pLl r1.J,.'Jl,._,
re.quîred and re.toesr.e.d
• allow tbeareto pass~......~~j..ol1..t:Jf
freewh::holetor hln'd· -...:.r.'--..)I...
rancand affordhimeve0yiJ~.JJ .;..~l,J..t_!
whlc:hhe maystand in need..IJ,Yc;: ~~

lssued by ordofHis f\...~~~
Qatar.enc:y R.uler cf
..J.ü

----...___ ._ ___ ·....··......._.....

--~~~~--------------------- FRERE(!IOUIELEY 141014
01/08 '00 16:5FAX0144347111
0144347111

.~J tT"J!~ ~­

l'his pascont~32psag~..'!",jjl~ ..~e
t t PASSPORT : jJ1 j'y.

_,.q_ jJl ~~ t Qatar State and
.D~pe~d;encies. ~lj J; ~_, -c..

PASSPORT To a.ll whomitmay -~~~Je~ ")~J
. concern :-

QATAR $TATE G!'~inz ·.-
AND ··.Hoooi,.frtendthe
Officr.ilsof the Great Powers,r.j ..:1.;'
"DEPENDENCIES ana the R-epresentat,:..,j:rrUWlJ,..UIJ~..)
---- ~ .:·requlred and réque~te..)1).j.-1~Lt.;,T'
0 !allowthebever to pass • ·.; - · . _,jl
No. of Passpon: t '~ jl.)~.) .: frewitholet or hin.r..J ~r .r.!'..J.·..;-
,;,.,.. . rancetoaffo~tmevery..:I~.JJ.:..~_,....JII__,.I:,...IJ_
..Name of Bearer_...::.."+c;,_y--J.,b..r-"1 .assistance and prof lo. Ut . 4-JI~1~.
·, "' 1 . whlchmaystatnnn~~d.. ~~- i.T' • - , •
·. lssued by.. of His rSL;..~;~
:f"~ (};(bt 4w .Il _L_~· ··Qatar. - --··lerof ..r""'
... "'
Acco my_ ~9n. . e!d;....~ .~..!~:;:::':;_,.:..::---J=--~---..,;._;;;.-P:;;;.._-"-
1
•

....
- :~.~·~-----------~------------- 01/'00 16:57 FAX01443FRERE<AIOLMELEY
141015
0144347111

i....

,
This passpor~{1r.j\_,.{.1l.l.A...J...=.:.!,

v<vv.'j}~
c,' PA?SSOR-T ~

Ql.\TAR STATE
AND~ ..
DEPENDENCIES
----

No. of2.2:?•Y't .}~,,~\
· NofB~~.*-I J.r-.

\-\oi-IAë~~QEb M ,. A ·'(~AR.\ l'

Ac:c:b'"'iafll--~'"~':'.C:

0 14016
01/08 '00 16:57 FAX0144347111 FRERE<AIOLMELEY
0144347111

,/
,.1;:._
\ . ' ..
This p!isscontai31page~ rrJs J:l~l~•.J...:.:.:
PASSPORT

.)-} l j l_p.- Qatar State ·and
Dependencies.

.. PASSPORT To ali whom it may -: \~~ uw .(rJS-l
concern :-

QATAR STATE Greedng.
AND Hono.urablefrlethe,
DEPENDENCIES OffielalsofthePowers.riPt·t;..,_.y:-;~;.l",
anetthe Representaofv.:..\.rJl rUlz.JjJ~.JI
other Klngclabroaare
allow thebearetos~ass ~ JI)..1J.al1J'-wi
freelwithoulet: or hmd·..r.,:s..r--:,rJJ)I
ranceanto affhim every.._t"l.J..:.~_,.-fll_,.l.r..tJ
assistance proteetlon of•;.aU~~ 1El:.:J.(;.
whichemaystand in need.
o&EI/1 AL T/9tf!JE'·t. lssueby orderof His ~1. :.4.'.
Exeellency tR.ulerof
Acc:ompanled by ~i_, ~d·;: ~-~ Qatar. ..-hi
.. . --:: . .

I.A.L!FC,9/tUJ~AUGHY.I<

NarlonStatu\-="')-\~·:J~ •(~,~~U_~..·iJ-1

&;f/TI'/Rl&fi!/# -rag.&tZATIQLV
-~ \ ~: ·f. ~[6i:l.f.
; .
-·'- ..
..-·-----~-·-··-··--··---~~-

·.,J'!,

'.'