Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) - The Court finds that Qatar has sovereignty over Zubarah and Janan Island and that the low-tide elevation

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ruSTICE

Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel: +31 (0)70 302 23 23. Cables: Intercourt,
The Hague. Fax: +31 (0)70 364 99 28. Telex: 32323. E-mail address:
[email protected]. Internet address: http://www.icj-cij.org.

Press Release
No. 2001/9
16March2001

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

The Court finds that Qatar bas sovereignty over Zubarah and Janan Island and that the
low-tide elevationf Fasht ad Dibal falls onder the sovereignty of Qatar; It finds that
Bahrain bas sovereignty over the Hawar Islands and the island of Oit'at Jaradah;
and it draws a single maritime boundan• between the two States

THE HAGUE, 16 March 2001. Today the International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, delivered its Judgment in the case conceming Maritime
Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatarhrain), the longest
in its history.

In its Judgment, which is final, without appeal and binding for the Parties, the Court

unanimously finds that Qatar bas sovereignty over Zubarah;

finds by twelve votes to five that Bahrain bas sovereignty over the Hawar Islands;

unanimously recalls that vesselsQatar enjoy in the territorial sea of Bahrain separating the
Hawar Islands from the other Bahraini islands the right of innocent passage accorded by
customary international law;

finds by thirteen votes ta four that Qatar bas sovereignty over Janan Island, including Hadd
Janan;

• findsby twelve votes to five that Bahrain has sovereignty over the island ofQit'at Jaradah;

unanimously finds that the low-tide elevationasht ad Dibal falls under the sovereignty of
Qatar;

decides by thirteen votes ta four that the single maritime boundary that divides the varions
maritime zones of Qatar and Bahrain shaH be drawn as indicated in paragraph 250 of the

Judgment.

In this latter paragraph, the Court 1ists the co-ordinates of the points that have to be joined, in
a specified arder, by geodesie !ines in arder ta forrn the following single maritime boundary:

in the southem part, from the point of intersection of the respective maritime limits of Saudi
Arabia on the one hand and of Bahrain and Qatar on the other, which cannat be fixed, the
boundary follows a north-easterly direction, then immediately tums in an easterly direction,
after which it passes between Jazirat Hawar and Janan; it subsequently tums to the north and
passes between the Hawar Islands and the Qatar peninsula and continues in a northerly
direction, leaving the low-tide elevation of Fasht Bu Thur, and Fasht al Azm, on the Bahraini

side, and the low-tide elevations of Qita'a el Erge et de Qit'at ash Shajarah on the Qatari side; - 2-

finally it passes between Qit'at Jaradah and Fasht ad Dibal, leaving Qit'at Jaradah on the

Bahraini side and Fasht ad Dibal on the Qatari side (see paragraph 222 of the Judgment);

in the northem part, the single maritime boundary is foirned by a line which, from a point

situated to the north-west of Fasht ad Dibal, meets the d:quidistance tine as adjusted to take
account of the absence of effect given to Fasht al Jarim. The bowtdary then follows this
adjusted equidistance line until it meets the delimitation between the respective maritime zones

of Iran on the one band and of Bahrain and Qatar on the other (see paragraph 249 of the
Judgment).

Reasoning of the Court

In its Judgment, the Court, after setting out the procedural background in the case, recounts
the cornplex history of the dispute. 1t notes that Bahrain .and Qatar bad concluded exclusive
protection agreements with Great Britain in 1892 and 1916:respectively, and that this status of

protected States bad ended in 1971. The Court further cites the disputes which arase between
Bahrain and Qatar on the occasion, inter alia, of the granting,of concessions to ail cornpanies, as
well as the efforts made to settle those disputes. ·

The Court first considers the Parties' daims to Zubar$. It states that, in the period after
1868, the authority of the Sheikh of Qatar over Zubarah w~ gradually consolidated, that it was
acknowledged in the 1913 Anglo-Ottoman Convention and was definitively established in 1937.

It further states that there is no evidence that members of 'the Naim tribe exercised sovereign
authority on behalf of the Sheîkh of Bahrain within Zubarah., 1t accordingly concludes that Qatar
has sovereignty over Zubarah. :

Tuming to the Hawar Islands, the Court states that ·the decision by which the British
Govemment found that those islands belonged to Bahrain does not constitute an arbitral award, but
that thisdoes not mean that it is devoid of legal effect. lt notes that Bahrain and Qatar consented to

Great Britain settling their disputet the time and finds that the 1939 decision must be regarded as
a decision that was binding from the outset on bath States <q~ c. dtinued to be binding on those
same States a fter 1971. Rejecting Qatar'sarguments that the decision was nul! and void, the Court

coneludes from the foregoing that Bahrain has sovereignty over the Hawar Islands.

The Court observes that the British decision of 1939:makes no mention of Janan Island,
which it considers as forming a single island with Hadd Janan. It points out, however, that in
1
letters sentin 1947 to the Rulers of Qatar and Bahrain, the British Govenunent made it clear that •
"Janan Island is not regarded as being included in the islands of the Hawar group". The Court
considers that the British Govemment, in so proceeding, provided an authoritative interpretation of

its 1939 decision. Accordingly, Qatar has sovereignty over Janan Island, including Hadd Janan.
'
The Court then tums to the question of the maritime delimitation. It recalls that international
customary law is the applicable law in the case and that the Parties have requested it to draw a

single maritime boundary. In the southern part, the Court has to draw a boundary delimiting the
territorial seasf the Parties, areas over which they enjoy territorial sovereignty (including sea-bed,
superjacent waters and superjacent aerial space). In the northem part, the Court bas to cany out a

delimitation between areas in which the Parties have only sovereign rights and functional
jurisdiction (continental shelf, exclusive economie zone).

Conceming the territorial seas, the Court considers that it bas to draw provisionally an

equidistance line (aline every point ofwhich is equidistant frqm the nearest points on the baselines
from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each of the ,two States is measured) and then to
consider whether that line must be adjusted in the light any special circumstances.

Given that the Parties have not specified the baselines6 be used, the Court recalls that under
the applicable rulesof law the nonnal baseline for measuring the breadtb of the territorial sea is the -3-

low-water tine along the coast. lt observes that Bahrain did not include a claim to the status of
archipelagic State in its formai submissions and that the Court is therefore not requested to take a

position on this issue. ln order to determine what constitutes the Parties' relevant coasts, the Court
must first establish which islands come under their sovereignty. Bahrain bas claimed to have
sovereignty over the islands of Jazirat Mashtan and Umm Jalid, a claim which bas not been
contested by Qatar. Asto Qit'atJaradah, the nature ofwhich is disputed, the Court considers that it

should be considered as an island because it is above water at high tide; the Court adds that the
activities which have been carried out by Bahrain are sufficient to support its claim sovereignty
over the island. With regard to low-tide elevations, the Court, a:fternoting that international treaty

law is silent on the question whether those elevations should be regarded as territory, finds that
low-tide elevations situated in the overlapping area of the territorial seas of both States cannat be
taken into consideration for the purposes of drawing the equidistance tine. This is true of Fasht ad
Dibal, which bath Parties regard as a low-tide elevation. The Court theo considers whether there

are any special circumstances which make it necessary to adjust the equidistance tine in arder to
obtain an equitable result.lt finds that there are such circumstances which justify choosing a
delimitation line passing on the one band between Fashtal Azrn and Qit'atash Shaja:rahand, on the
other, between Qit'atJaradah and Fasht ad Dibal.

In the northern part, the Court, citing its case-law, follows the same approach, provisionally
drawing an equidistance line and exarnining whether there are circumstances which require an
adjustment ofthat tine. The Court rejects Bahra:in'sargument that the existence of certain pearling

banks situated to the north of Qatar, and which were predominantly exploited in the past by
Bahra:irrifishermen, constituted a circumstance justifying a shifting of the line. 1t also rejects
Qatar's argument that there is a significant disparity between the coastal lengths of the Parties
calling foran appropriate correction. The Court further states that considerations of equity require

that the maritime fonnation of Fasht al Jarim should have no effect in detennining the boundary
tine.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi;
Judges Oda, Bedjaoui, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,
Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal; Judges ad hoc Torres

Bemârdez, Fortier; Registrar Couvreur.

Judge Oda appends a separate opinion to the Judgment. Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva and
Koroma append a joint dissenting opinion to the Judgment. Judges Herczegh, Vereshchetin and

Higgins append declarations to the Judgment. Judges Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans and
Al-Khasawneh append separate opinions to the Judgment. Judge ad hoc Torres Bernârdez appends
a dissenting opinion to the Judgment. Judge ad hoc Portier appends a separate opinion to the
Judgment.

A surnmary of the Judgment is given in Press Communiqué No. 2001/9bis, to which a

sumrnary ofthe opinions is annexed. The full text of the Judgment and of the opinions is available
on the Court'swebsite (http://www.icj-cij.org).

Information Department:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary (+3170 302 23 36)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Information Officer (+31 70 302 23 37)

E-mail address: [email protected]