Written Replies to Questions put by Vice President of the Court: Bahrain and Qatar

Attachment to the letter of Dr. Najeeb Al-Nauinû to the Registrar dated 11 March
1994

Response to

Questions of Vice-President Schwebel to Counsel

Question 1

The Doha Minutes (in the U.N. translation) specify that "the good offices" of the King of

Saudi Arabia "in addressing the dispute between the two countries" shaU continue until
May 1991; "Once thal period has elapsed, the two parties may submit the case to the

International Court of Justice, in accordance with the Bahraini formula accepted by the
State of Qatarand the arrangements relating thereto".

Does this provision indicate that:

(a) in the period of the continuation of Saudi good off~e eau,i Arabia would
endeavour to bring about a seulement of the substance of the dispute?

The answer is yes. As explainedin paragraph 3.55 of Qatar's Memorial, the Sultan of

Oman proposed, during the opening session of the Doba GCC Summit, that Saudi Arabia

be given a further period of 5 months, until after Ramadan, to try to reach a settlement on
the substance. Bahrain bad original!sked that Saudi Arabia's efforts to reach a settlement

on the substance be continued indefinitely. a proposai which Qatar had strongly opposed.

Bahrain's Foreign Minister confinns these facts in his statement(B.C~M A,nnex !.25.
p. 160, para. 3). He states as follows:

"Itwas also suggested by His Majesty Sultan Qaboos of Oman that a further

period shouldbe agreed, say to the end of Shawwal, during which time the

parties should try once again to reach a political solution of ail their
differencesIfnot, then the matter might proceed to the ICJ."

It should be noted that this was to be a "continuation" of Saudi Arabia's efforts to reach a

settlement on the substance.

Confirmation of the meaning of this part of the Doha Agreement is also to be found in

Qatar's letters of 30 December 1990, and 6 May and 18 June 1991 to the Mediator (see. - 2-

Qatar Memorial, Annexes II. 33, II. 34 and II. 35). For convenience of reference, copies

of these letters are attached. These leners show that the Parties actually did try to negotiate
a settlement on the substance during this period. They also show that Qatar agreed to wait

a further three weeks after the expiry of the deadline for further negotiations on the

substance before submitting the case to the Court (see, Qatar's Memorial, paras. 3.64~
3.65).

Moreover, as explained in Qatar's 18 June 1991 letter, Saudi Arabia's negotiation on the
substance would continue after reference to the Court. The last sentence of paragraph 2 and

paragraph 3 of theDoha Agreement read {in the U.N. 's translation) as follows:

''Agreement was reached as follows:

(2) ..The good offices of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia may continue during

the period in which the case is referred to arbitration.

(3) If a fratemal agreement acceptable to both parties is attained, the case

shall be withdrawn from arbitration."

Does this provision indicate that...(h) during that period (i.e. , until May 1991), the two

parties may not submit the matter to the Court?

Du ring thlsperiod neither of the parties could submit the matter to the Court unilateral!y.

Does this provision indicate that.... (c) once that period had elapsed, the two parties may

submit the case to the Court?

The answer is yes. Bach party coula submit the case to the Court unilaterally after the

agreed period bad elapsed.

Question 2

ln paragraph 2 of the Doha Minutes (in the U.N. translation), it is specified that "the

two parties may submit the case" to the Court, whereas paragraph 3 provides that,

thereajter, ''Ifafraternal agreement acceptable to hoth parties is attained'',.the case shall
be withdrawn. Does the pertinent phrase or do the pertinent phrases in the Arabie text

from which these passages have been translated 1 in their references to "the two parties"
and to "both parties", differ in paragraph 2 and 3, oris it or are they the same? - 3 -

The Arabie words used in both paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Doha Agreement for "the two
parties" and "both parties" are the same, that is to say, "al-tarafan".

Question 3

The translation of the draft of minutes on Saudi Arabian Foreign Ministry notepaper of
24 December 1990 provided that: "These consultations have concluded with the

agreement of the two parties on theformulation of the question which will be presented to
the International Court of Justice by each of them, which is as follows: ~as specified in

the Bahraini memorandum.

The two parties request the Court to decide..."
Did the original Arabie of which the foregoing is a translation, when it specifud "by each

of them " and "The two parties" request, use the same terms or different terms for these
two phrases ?

Different terms are used: in the Arabie of the draft of minutes on Saudi Arabian Foreign
Ministry notepaper the phrase which is translated by Dr. Hales as "by each of them" is

"min kullin minhuma". The words for "the two parties" in the Arabie are "al-tarafan".

Qatar bas already explained its viewson this document in its written and oral pleadings.

11 March 1994