STATE OF BAHRAIN Ù:J > .UJd lj.J
Office of the Minister of State .:t__,..l(~ jj ·.'ÏS o
P.O. Box 2088 l •AA~ ~
Manama, Bahrain ~.) >!ji-~\ j,oJJ
Pnone:217721 Fax:215508 'f\ "" •1\:~I. '.\SVVT\ :~\A)
No:
ICJ-QvB/318
Date: 13 July2000
H.E. Mr. Philippe Couvreur
Registrar
International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
THENETHERLANDS
Re: Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar
and Bahrain {Qatar v. Bahrain)
Your Excellency,
1have the honour ta provide Bahrain's wrttten response to the questions posed by Judges Parra
Aranguren and Kooijmans on29 June 2000 along with my govemment's comments on Qatar's
letterdated 29 June 2000 responding to Judge Vereshchetin's questions.
QUESTION 1
What is the extent and what are the territorial limits of Zubarah? An accurate
description would be appreciated, with indication of the evidence supporting the
answer.
1. The Zubarah region is a small, contained, and virtually uninhabited area of approximately
· 193 square kilometres on the West coast of the Qatar peninsula, representing slîghtly more
than one percent of Qatar's land terriTheZubarah region extends from Al Arish,
about 10 kilometres north of the town of Zubarah on the coast, to Umm El Ma, about 20
kilometres south of the town of Zubarah. lnland from the coast of the Gulf of Bahrain, the
region extends ta and incluAlsNa'man, Umm al Ghubbur, Masarehah and Al Thagab,
approximately 13, 9, 8 and 5 kilometres inland respectively. The territoriallimits of the
Zubarah region are shawn on Map5 in Volume7of Bahrain's MemorialA copy of this
map isattached at Annex 1.
2. The co-ordinates for the locations that establish the eastem petheeZubarah
region are attached at Annex 2.
3. Following the transfer of the Al Khalifa capital from the city of Zubarah to the main island of
Bahrain at the end of 18e1Century, the Rulers of Bahrain exercised authority over the
northem part of the Qatar peninsula through the Naim tribe. The Naim were the principal
tribe in a tribal confederation that inhabited the north of the peninsula. They were subjectOffice of the Minister of State
Page2
ta and loyal to the Al Khalifa through the 19l nd 20thCentury Jeading up to Qatar's armed
attack on 1 July 1937.1 ln the 1930's, the Al-Ramzan branch of the Naim defected to the
Ruler of Qatar and went to Doha and its environs, while theAl~ab branch of the Naim
tribe,whose tribal dirah (territory) was situated in and around the town of Zubarah,
2
maintained their allegianΠtothe Ruler of Bahrain.
4. The geographie extent of the Zubarah region claimed by Bahrain is an area over which
Bahrain continuously and openly exercised authority by virtue of the allegiance of the AI
Jabr bran ch of the Naim tribe.
5. As recognised in the Dubai-Sharjah Border Arbitration, Arab tribes distinguished between a
town and its associated area (haram) and the dirah of the tribes in the desert area:
The term 'dirah' indicates a region within which a nomadic people maves.
The term 'haram' means, however, an area in the vicinity of a town or
settlement upon which such town or settlement has a claim of exclusive
rights for the purpose of obtaining the necessities of its existence."
6. References to "Zubara the~e,ore, have three possible meanings: first. to the ruined city
of Zubarah; second, tothe city of Zubarah and associated settled areas; and third, to the
Zubarah Region, the combined haram and dirah of the AI-Jabr. Lorimer's Gazetteer of the
Persian Gulf, refers to Zubarah as a "ruined and deserted town". Lorimer observed that
the site was still frequented by ''the Naim of Bahrain and Qatar'' and that it was surrounded
by dependent forts ''within a radius of 7 mile[15.4 kilometres} from the main town
including "Faiaihah, Halwan [Hulwan}, Lisha, 'Ain Muhammad, Qal'at Murair [the main
Zubarah fort], Rakaiyat, Umm-ash-Shuwail [Umm Al Shuvvyyij and Thagab.'.4 These are
the same places identified by Bahrain as being within the limits of its claim to the Zubarah
Region.
7. ln 1937, the Political Agent prepared a briefing note for the British Political Resident on the
Zubarah situation and stated that the "Zubarah area may be taken to be an enclave
running from the coast south of and including Rubeijah, inland to include the wells at
Halwan [Hulwan], Masaichah [Masarehah] and Lashi [lisha] retuming to the coast at and
including Faraihah village. The ruined town of Zubarah and the ruined fort of Umm Rear
5
[Murair] will be seen to be included within this area.''
BM, para.85.
2
See BM, paras. 73-103.
3
Dubai-ShaJjah Border Arbitrafion, 91 ILRpp.588.
4
LorimerGazetteerofthe Persian GulfVol.li, 1952, BM, Ann. 74, Vol. 3, p. 398.
5 Report entitled "Zubarah Incident" and a memorandum entltled "Possible basis of a Compromise" by
Capt. Hick.inbotham, British Political Agent, 3 May 1937, SM, Ann. 126, Vol. 3, pp. 654 and 665. Umm
Rear was aneth er name given to Murair, the AJ-Khalifa ftownof Zubarah.Office of the Minister of $tate
Page3
8. Lorimer andthe PoliticalAgentwerethusdescribingZubarahas includingthe cityand the
surroundingsettledareas , boundedta the northbyRakaiyat;ta theeast by Thagab,
Masarehahand Lisha;andta Hulwaninthe south. ThesedescriptionsofZubarahwereto
the cityofZubarah andthe associatedsettledareas. Thiswas the home of the hadar, the
membersof the AI-Jabrtribewho hadpennanenthomes. For example, Fadilbin
Mohannaai-Naimi,who livedin a housein Lishaforover20 years, appliedto registerthis
propertyin the BahrainiLandRegistrationDirectoratsin 1937. And SalehbinMuhammad
ali binAlial Naimi describeshowasa childhis familylivedat the oasisof Lishaandhow
provisions couldbe obtainedthere. Thiswas thecoreofAl-Jabr territory. Thus,when
waJtingfor the impendingAl Thaniattackon 1July 1937,theAl Naim gatheredat Lisha
and Hulwanand the firstsignof theAl Thaniintruderswasat the guardpostinThagab. 9
9. The territoryof the Zubarahregionoccupiedby thenomadicAI-Jabr was understood,in
commonwithetherArab tribes,intermsoftheir dirah,whichwas in tum identifiedby
referenceto their grazinggroundsaroundspecifiewellsor cases. ln 1937,theZubarah
regionextendedfrom the cityof Zubarahto thewellsandsettlementsthat encircledit {the
haram) andincludedthe Naimgrazinggrounds (dirah)tothe north, southandeastof the
haram. Bahrainhaslimiteditsclaimto thatpartof theZubarah regionwithintheline
circumscribedby the wellsand placesdescribedinparagraph1 above. The locationsof
thesewellsand placesare easilyidentifiedand provideclearpoints for a delineationline
betweenBahrain'sand Qatar'sterritoryon the peninsula.
10. The territorialextent ofthe ZubarahregionclaimedbyBahrain is basedon abundant
historieandcontemporaneousevidenceas weil asuncontradictedwitnessstatements
from membersof the Al Jabrtribe. Thisevidenceissetoutin Bahrain's Memorialat
paragraphs89-103and is brieflysummarisedbelow.
11. ln May 1937,during negotiationswiththe Rulerof Qatar,Bahrain presenteda compromise
proposai ta thePoliticalAgentthat Bahrain'scontrolinnorthem Qatar wouldbe limitedto
the Zubarahregionand thatthe Naimcoulddecidebyplebiscitewhich Rulertheywould
serve.10 TheAIThani, knowingthatthey had no claimto the loyalty of the inhabitantsof
the Zubarahregion andknowingthattheinhabitantsof theZubarah regionconsidered
6 Statement of Mohammed bîn Mohammed bin Theyab Al Naimi, BM, Ann. 233(a), Vol. 4, p. 1014 and
Statement of Saleh bin Muhammed AlibinAl Naimi, SM, Ann. 234(aVol. 4, p1025.
7
SM, Ann. 118, Vol. 3p. 638.
8
Statement ofSaleh bin Muhammed Ali bln Al Naimi, SM, Ann. 234{Vol. 4, p1025.
9
Statement of Mohammed bin Mohammed bin Theyab Al Naimi, BM, Ann. 233(a),Vol. 4, p1014 at
1016.
10 Memorandum from Assistant Political Agent Bahrain, dated 29 May 1937, QM, Annex 111.Vol.7, p.
157Office of the Minister of State \ ,;sa
Page4
themselvessubjectsof the Rulerof Bahrain,do notappear to haveacceptedthis
11
proposa1.
12. TheaUegiance of the AI-JabrNaimwas confirmedonemonth laterwhen no less than 536
12
inhabitantsof the Zubarah regionsenta petitionto the Ruler of Bahrain. A copyof this
petitionisin the Britisharchivesandthe originalpetition,comprisingseven large sheetsof
parchmentattestedto with thumbprints,sealsandnames, is in theGovemmentof
Bahrain'sarchives. ft is a visibleandcompellingtestamentofthe BahrainiNaim's
allegianceto the Rulerof Bahrainandthe territorialextent of the Zubarahregion. SinŒ
onlyfamilyheadswould havesignedthe petition,and given the extremelylaw population
of the area,the petition probablyrepresentedthe overwhelmingmajorityof the familias
livingin theZubarah regionin 1937. The petitionstatesin part:
...wethe undersigned,the inhabitantswithintheboundariesofZubarafor over
hundredyears are belonging ta the Kha!ifahrulersof Bahrainandwe have
neverbeen under theruleofanyotherRuler. the boundariesof Zubara are
fromRasAshairij [Ra'sUshayrilland Rabaijahand Um al Mai[Umm El Ma]and
Na'maanand Halwanand Lishaand Misaichah[Masarehah]andThagabto Ras
al Hiddeyyah[southofAl Arish]andFraihat [AlFaraihah]toZubaraand these
boundariesare the propertyof the KhalifahRulersof Bahrainfromthe oldest
timetilltoday."13
13. lmmediatelyafter the attackonZubarah,the Rulerof Bahraininforrnedthe PoliticalAgent
thatZubarahincluded:Al Thagab,Fureiha[Al Faraihah],Ain Muhammad,Umm al
Sheweel{UmmAl Shuwyyl],AlZubarah,Qala UmmRear [Murair],Al Rabaija[Al
Rubayqan],Halwan [Hulwan],Lisha,Masuchhi[Masarehah]andAl Maharaqa. 14
14. ln thecontextof the 1944 settlementnegotiationsbetweenBahrainand Qatar, Capt.
Hickinbotham,the PoliticalAgent, proposedthatthe historicaldaims ofthe AI-Khalifa ta
thefortsatthewells of UmmEl Ma,Al Naman,Al Lisha,Halwan [Hulwan],Umm Sika
(Masarehah]and Al Furiha[Faraihah],ali ringingtheZubarah area, be recognised. 15
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13
Letter from Charles Belgrave, Advisor to Govt. of Bahrain, tc Capt. Hickinbotham, British Political Agent,
20 June 1937, BM, Ann. 130(a), Vol. 3, pp. 679 to 680.
14
LatterfromCap!. Hickinbotham, British Political AgentCol.Fowle, British Political Resident.
4 July 1937, BM, Ann. 141, Volp.,701.
15
Capt. Hickinbotham's 1944 proposai for the settlement of the Zubarah dispute, February 1944, BM,
Ann. 166, Vol. 4, p,751, sent under caver of a letter to Ruler of Qatar, 8 February 1944, BM, Ann. 165,
Vol. 4, p. 749.Office of the Minister of State
PageS
15. ln November1946,the Rulerof Bahraindescribedhisancestralterritoriesand theextent
of Bahrainiland to the BritishPolitica/Agent, LieutenantColonelGal/oway,as"the portof
Zubaraterritory,thehousesin Zubaraand the Usha,and Halwan[Hulwan]and UmSaicha
[MasarehahJand Um-Alma[UmmEl Ma]and themasquesand the graveyardsandhis
freedomand thatof hispeopleonthe sea coastfromAlArish to UmAlma [UmmElMa]
16
andin the desertof the landwithoutinterference."
16. ln March1948,theRulerofBahrain agaîndescribedhisterritoriesas includingthe townof
Zubarah,Lisha,UmmEl Ma, Rabaijah,FaraihahandHulwan. 17
17. ln June1948,Mr. Ballantyne,adviserto the BahrainioilconŒssionaireBAPCO,located
18
the southemboundaryof theZubarahareaat "Ommal Mai"(Umm El Ma).
18. FormerZubarah residentshaveattestedto the extentof the Zubarah region overwhichthe
Rulerof Bahrainexercisedcontrolandwhich theAI-Jabrbranchof the Naim inhabited.
Theyconfirm that theZubarahregionincludestheareawithinthe limits ofAlArish,Al
19
Thagab,Masarehah,Umm al Ghubbur,Al Na'man,Al Maharaqaand Al Judaydah.
19. The mapin Montigny-Kozlowska'sstudy Evolution d'un groupe bédouin dans un pays
producteur de petrole: les Al-N'imde Qatar demonstrates that the AI-Jabrwerethepre-
20
·dominantbranchofthe Naim intheZubarah region.
Bahrainsubmitsthatthe evidencealreadybeforetheCourtdemonstrates a continuous
20.
andconsistentrecognitionof the territorialextentoftheZubarahregion as describedin
paragraph1.
16 Note byLt.Col. GaUoway on his meeting with Ruler of Bahrain on 2 November 1946, BM, Ann. 182(a),
Vol. 4, p. 790.
17
Letter from Ruler of Bahrain to C.J. Pelly, British Political Agent, 2 BM,cAnn. 186, Vol4,
p. 798.
18
Letter from Mr. BaUantyne (Adviser to BAPCO), ta Charles Belgrave, Adviser Govt.of Bahrain,
2 June 1948, Ann. 188, Vol. 4, p. 802.
19
Statement of Mohammed bin Mohammed bin Theyab PJ Naimi.SM, Ann. 233(a), Vol. p. 1014 and
Statementof Saieh bin Muhammed Alibin Al Naimi, SM, Ann. 234(a),4,op. 1025.
20 A. Montigny~Koz lvoluiokad,un groupe bédouin dans un pays producteur de pétrole: les Al
Naim de Qatar,(Paris, 1985 PhD thesip.53,SM, Ann. 229, Vol. p.983.Office of the Minister of State
Page6
QUESTION 2
Which baselines were used for the determination of the outer limits of the territorial
sea before the Parties extended the breadth of the territoriar sea to 12 nautical miles
in 1992 and 1993, respectively? Are any maps or nautical charts available which
reflect these baselines and the outer limits of the territorial sea?
1. Uke manyother states, Bahrain has not specifiedbaselinesor the co-ordinatesqf
basepointsfor the determination ofthe limitsof itsterritorialsea. Norhas Bahrain
producedmaps or charts that indicatesuch baselinesor basepoints. Nevertheless,
Bahrainhasconsistentlymaintainedthat,in accordancewith internationallaw, its
basepointsareto be measured from the law waterline ofits islandsand the lawtide
elevationswithinthese islands'territorialwaters. Bahrainplaced beaconsand markers on
these islandsand law tide elevationsin the 1930's. Bahrain's basepointsopposite the
Qatar peninsulaare located on the law water linesof Qit'atJaradah, Fashtad Dibal, Qita'a
el Ergeand Fasht Bu Thur; multiplebasepointsare located on the lawwater lines of the
HawarIslands,including Janan.
2. Since Bahrain'slong-standing claimta theZubarah regionis subjecttothe Court's
jurisdiction, Bahrain has specified basepointson the coast of the Zubarahregion in these
proceedings. ln the event that the Courtdeclinesto restorethe Zubarahregion to Bahrain,
Bahrainwouldhave to use additionalbasepointson thelaw water lineof Oit'at ash
Shajarahfor the measurement of itsterritorialseain the area oppositethe Zubarah region,
as explainedin its oral argument.
3. Bahrainhasattached to this letter,at Annex 3, a copyof itbasepoints. For the Court's
reference,thesebasepoints were providedat tab 115of the Bahrain'sJudge's Folders. An
illustrationofthe maritime boundaryclaimedby Bahrainin relation taBahrain'sand Qatar's
ether maritimeboundaries ls attachedat Annex 4.
4. Bahrainhasused the above basepointson itsislandsand the low-tideelevationsin the
territorialseasofthose islands ta measure the breadth of itterritorialsea. The Bahraini
21
coastguardpatrolsBahrain's territorial sea tothe eastofthese basepoints.
BAHRAIN'S COMMENTS ON QATAR'S RESPONSES TO JUDGE VERESHCHETIN'S
QUESTIONS
Pursuantta Article72 of the Rules of the Court,which affordsBahrain an opportunityto
comment uponQatar'swritten reply tc the questionsposedby Judge Vereshchetin,Bahrain
respectfullysubmitsthe following observations.
Question 1: Treaty Relations of Bahrain and Qatar
1. On page2of Qatar's response ta thefirst question,Qatarcontends thatthe 1868
undertaking by Mahomed bin Saneeof Guttershouldhavebeen includedin the list
provided bythe United Kîngdom in 1971of treatiesestablishingspecialtreaty relations
21 See BR, Ann. 24, Vol. p.148.Office of the Minister of State
Page?
betweenthe UnitedKingdomandQatar. Bahrainsubmitsthat thisargument is
unsustainablein lightof the analysisof t1868 agreementthatappearsin CR 2000/22,
28 June 2000, pp. 8-22. lndeed,the tact thaBritaidid notdosa confirms this analysis.
Qataris yet againtrylng to argueagainst tacts.
2. Thesecond paragraphof page 2 states that GreatBritain"consideredthe State of Qatarta
beanindependantState withthecapacity to enterinta intematianalagreements." Qatar
thenlistsa numberoftreaties thatthe State ofQatarentered"lnits own right". Qatarfails
to mention thatprioto 1971, Qatar'sright to enterinto internationalagreements was
subjectto, and limitedby, itsspecitreatyrelationswith GreatBritain,as were ether
importantsovereignrights, suchasthe right tograntconcessionsover natural resources.
Thiswas the essenceof the Jackofinternationalpoliticalindependance. The natureand
effectof Qatar's specialtreatyrelationswas tullyaddressedby Bahrainin its oral
pleadings.22
Question 2: The Meaning of "Bahrain and its Dependencies"
1. Qatar'sstatementin the firstparagraphof section(a)of its commentregarding the "Official
denominationof the State of Bahrain"to the affectthat"this referenceta 'dependencies'is
not opposableto Qatar"is factuallyand legallyincorrect. The nationaldenominationof
"Banrainand its Dependencies",whichwas usedbyBritainand Bahrainfor decades prier
to 1971 in officialdocumentsincludingpassports,representedan unequivocalterritorial
description,with unmistakablereferencestotneHawarIslands,maritimefeatures andthe
Zubarahregion. There isno recordof any protestbyQatar of these territorialimplications.
Qatarcannet have been unawareof the officialnameof Bahrainas used by Britain inits
Exchangeof Noteswith Bahraindated 15August 1971or of theimplicationsfor the Hawar
IslandsandZubarahof the useofthe name "Stateof Banrainandits Dependencies",in
contrastta the referenceta Qataras simply"theStateof Qatar"in the notes exchanged
betvv'eeBritainand iton 3 September 1971. Regardmust be hadto tne previous history
of Britain'sattituderegardingZubarahas weil astheHawar Islandsand, especiallyas ta
the latter,to the BritishGovemment'1939 Award.
2. Bahrainwisnesta draw attentionto the tact that thewar"Dependenc as used in the
Exchangeof Notesof 15August1971was spelfedwith a capital "D~ indicativethat the
ward is partof the officialnameof the State of Bahrain,and not merelya geographical
descriptionas mighthave beensuggestedif the wardwere notintroduced by a capital
latter.
3. ln the secondparagraphof page2,Qatar onceagainasserts that the treaties of 1868,
1880 and 1892 betweenBritainand Bahrain "wereenteredintoat the time of, or
subsequentto, Britain'sfirst recognitionof Qataras a separateentity".The assertionthat
Qatarwas recognisedas a separateentity fromBahrainin 1868 is repeatedin paragraph
(c) of Qatar'scomments.
22
CR 2000/11 p. 25, paras. 37.-42; p. 26, para. 42;CR 2000/13 pp. 50·66, paras. 2·128, CR 2000/21 p. 8,
paras. 4·5; pp. 9·12, paras. 8·18: pp. 21-32, paras. 1-80; and CR 2000/22 p. 8, para. 3.Office of the Minister of State
PageS
4. Bahraîn will not repeat its detailed refutation of Qatar's imaginative narrative about the
supposed development of Qatar as an qentity"that appears in CR 2000/22, 28 June 2000,
pp.B-22, but will merely recall that that analysis excludes any identification of a separate
identity, in any meanîngful sense of the ward, called "Qatar'' prier ta mentionitin the
unratified Angle-Ottoman Treaty of 1913.
5. The statement in the fourth paragraph on the same page (page 2) of Qatar's comments,
that "[s]ubsequently,official Bahraini documents were headed "Govemment of Bahrain'"', is
misleading. Though sorne were headed in this way, ethers were headed "State of Bahrain
and itsDependencies". For example, passports issued by Bahrain from the late 1950's
until1971 were headed "Govemment of Bahrain and Dependencies".
6. ln the third paragraph of section (b), entitled wMeaningof the term "dependencies"", that
begins on page 3 of Qatar's response, Qatar states: "The use of the wording in the 1913
British Order-in-Council "which may be included in the Principalîty... " suggests that
reference was being made to possible future expansion of the Principality of Bahrain".
Bahrain submits that this is a self-serving and incorrect interpretation of the words qwhich
may be included". ltis also counter-intuitive ta suggest that in relation to Bahrain alone
and no other of the territories, for which it was responsible, Sritain legislated with specifie
reference to possible future territorial expansion. The words used are the standard way of
referring ta, without listing specifically, areas that are included in the territory of Bahrarn,
whether before or after the date of the Order. Since the words preceding uotherterritories"
tullydescribe Bahrain's islands and maritime features, the additional reference ta uother
territories"y the drafters of the Order must have been intended to mean Sahrain's
dependencies on the Qatar peninsula.
7. Finally, as ta the Qatar's reference on page 4 to Laithwaite's description of Bahrain as a
ucompact group of frve islands", the uninformed and hesitant nature of Laithwaite's views
on the territories of Bahrain was addressed by Bahrain on 28 June 2000 (CR2000/21, pp.
36-37, paras. 21-28). Laithwaite's geographie description was manifest!y incorrect, was
not a legal decision and has no bearing on the territorial extent Bahrain.
Accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.
~S::.. __J\~
'-:iAW.AoSAUMALARAYED "
MINISTEROFSTATE
AGENTOFTHESA'II'Of BAHRAlN8EFTHlCJAnnex1
Ra's Rakan
~(j Annex 2
Boundary Coorinates of the Zubarah Region
Location Name Latitude Longitude
1. Al Arish 26°03.15'N 051°03.30'E
2. AIThagab 26°02.00'N 051°05.10'E
3. Masarehah 25°57.30'N 051°06.00'E
4. Umm Al Ghubbur 25°53.80'N 051°04.55'E
5. Al Na'man 25°52.00'N 051°05.20'E
6. Um El Ma 25°49.00'N 050°59.20'E Annex 3
State ofBahrain Territorial Sea Basepornts
Approximate Territorial Sea Bascpoints for the determination of the Boundary between
Bahrain and Qatar toe nearest second of arc on Ain a! Abd Datum (1970).
North ern Sector
Fasht ad Dibal
Southern Sector
Line 01- Y
Fasht ad Dibal
82. 26° 16'41"N 50° 58' 44"E
83. 26°15'51"N 50°58'45"E
84. 26° 15'28"N 50° 58'52~E
85. 26° 13. 08"N 50° ST 02~E
Qit'at Jarâdah
Zubarah
Y. 26° 03· 14"N 51° 03' lTE
B7. 26° 04' 58"N 51° 02'02~E
88. 26° 02' 36"N 51° 01' 16"E
Line X- 25° 30'N
Zubarah
X. 25° 49· 12"N 50° 59' lO'lZ
89. 2Yl 49' 36"N 50° 57' 48'"E
B1O. 25° 49' 59"N 50° 57' 16~E
Bll. 25° 52' IS"N 50° 56' 48"E
Qita'a el Erge
812. 25° 53' ITN 50° 50'19~E Fasht Bü Thür
813. 25° 49' 25"N
50° 46' 24T
llm,·ar Islands
Bl4. 25° 45' 54"N 50°47' JJ~E
815. 25° 44' 2T'N
50°49' 32"'E
BI6. 25Q41' 22"N 50° 48' STE
817. 25° 40'45~N soo49' 28"E
BIS. 25° 39' ITN 50° 49' 2TE
819. 25° 37' 55"N 50o 49' OTE
820. 25° 37' 23"N
50° 48' I6T
821. 25° 36'41~N 50° 47' 18T:
822. 25° 36' 24'N soo 47' Ol"E
823. -25° 35'SO'"N soo 45· srE
824. 25° 34. 48'"Nsoo 46'02~E
1325. 25°34"04'"N
826. 50° 47' 19"'F.
25° 33' 3TN soo 48' li"E
827. 25° 32' 39·N 500 48' 4TE
B28. zso33' 09"N soo44· 4ST
829. 25° 32' 06'"N50° 44.23~F. Annex 4
Single Maritime Boundary Requested by BahrainAgent of the State of Qatar before the
,.,.....w&i ..f.J..-.$ .J
International Court of Justice 4_,JJI J..uJI 4 .<.:..A,s.LJ
H.E.Mr. Philippe Couvreur
Registrar
Internationalourt of Justice
Peace Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
The Netherlands
13 July 2000
Re. Case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar
and Bahrain (Qatar v.Bahrain)
Sir,
Inaccordance with the instructions of the President of the Court, announced at the close of the
oral proceedings on9 June 2000, I have the honour to enclose herewith the following:
Qatar's answers to the questions addressed to bath Parties, at the Court's session of
29 June 2000, by Judges Parra-Aranguren and Kooijmans, respectively;
Qatar'scomments on Bahrain's answers to the questions Judge Vereshchetin; and
Qatar's comments on the arguments advanced by Bahrain during its second round of
pleading with regard to the five new documents conceming Zubarah that Bahrain bad
originally proposed to produce with its answer to the questions of Judge Vereshchetin,
together with Qatar's comments on the documents thernselves.
Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.
do Embassy of the State of Qatar, 1 South Audley London.W1Y 5DQ
Tel (44.171) 493 22 00- Fax (44.171) 493 26 61 13 July 2000
QATAR'S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION PUT .BYJUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN
TO QATAR AND BAHRAIN
At the hearing of 29 June 2000, Judge Parra-Aranguren addressed the following question ta
bath Parties:
"\Vhat is the extent and what are the territorial limits of Zubarah? An accurate
description would be appreciated, with indication of the evidence supporting the
answer".
Qatar'sresponse is as follows:
Zubarah is a ruined town, located on the north-western coast of Qatar. It was a fortified town,
with an inner and an outer wall. The outer wall meets the coast at two points, the coordinates
of which are approximately 25°59'05"N, 51°01'21"E and 25°58'25"N, 51°01'17"E.
Qatar encloses herewith a copy of a recent aerial photograph of Zubarah, on which the
location ofthe outer wall may be clearly seen.
The tov.n covered an area of approximately 60 hectares, being about 1500 metres long from
north to south and 400 metres wide from east to west. It is depicted ·on Map No. 10, facing
page 189 of Qatar's Memorial. Today, Zubarah is an archaeological site, having the legal
statusof public property o...-vnby the State of Qatar. The site is protected under Law No. 2 of
1980 relating to Antiquities.
Also depicted on Map No. 10 is the location ofthe ruined Murair fort, which was built by the
Al-Utub tribe, about 1500 metres from the outside wall of the town, together with a channel
and four walls lying between the town and Murair fort, and a cemetery sorne 2100 metres
outside the town. Finally, the fort (or"police·post") that was built by the Ruler of Qatar is
shawn. Traditionally, "Zubarah" has always meant the old town. Loosely, the Murair fort and the fort
built by the Ruler of Qatar might also be referred to as being part of Zubarah. There is,
however, no defined "Zubarah region" as now claimed by Bahrain. In addition, Qatar would
point out that when the various issues were submitted to the Court by virtue of Qatar's Act of
30 November 1994, the relevant issue was stated to be "Zubarah", with no mention of any so
called "Zubarah region". At paragraph 48 of its Judgment of 15 February 1995, the Court held
that:
"It is clear... that claims of sovereignty over the Hawar islands and over Zubarah may
be presented by either of the Parties, from the moment that the matter of the Hawar
islands and that of Zubarah are referred to the Court. As a consequence, it appears that
the forrn of words used.by Qatar aceurateIy deseribed the subject of the dispute" 1•
1l.C.J. Reports 1995,p. 6,atp. 25. 13July 2000
QATAR'S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY JUDGE KOOIJMANS TO
QATAR AND BAHRAIN
At the hearing of29 June 2000, Judge Kooijmans addressed the following questions to beth
Parties:
"Which base!ines were used for the determination of the outer Iimits of the territorial
sea, before the Parties extended the breadth of the territorial sea to 12 nautical inles
1992 and 1993,respectively?
Are any maps or nautical charts available which reflect these baselines and the outer
linùts of the territorial sea?".
Qatar'sresponse is as follows:
Prior to Amiri Decree No. 40 of 1992 defining the breadth of the territorial sea and contiguous
zone of the State of Qatar, Qatar had no legislation specifically concerning its territorial sea,
and the baselines for the detennination of the outer limits of its territorial sea were, therefore,
determined inaccordance with customary international law.
To the best of Qatar'sknowledge and belief, Bahrain similarly had no legislation concerning
baselines for the determinationof its territorial sea.
Also to the best of Qatar's knowledge. and belief, no maps or nautical charts are available
which reflect baselines or the outer limitsf the territorial seas of Qatar or Bahrain, as they
existed prior to 1992and 1993, respective!y. 13 July 2000
QATAR'S COMMENTS ON BAHRAIN'S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS POSED
BY JUDGE VERESHCHETIN
By letter of 29 June 2000, Bahrain responded to the questions that were posed by Judge
Vereshchetin at the close ofthe session on 15 June 2000. Those questions were the following:
First question
''Before 1971, were there any international agreements concluded by the United
Kingdorn with Qatar and Bahrain respectively other than those establishing their
relationship of protection?
Were there any international agreements concluded by the United Kingdom with third
States in the name of or on behalf of Qatar and Bahrain before 1971? If so, what is the
status of these agreements for Qatar and Bahrain now?"
Second question
''The British Note of 1971 conceming the termination of special treaty relations
between the United Kingdom and the State of Bahrain refers to Bahrain as 'Bahrain
and its dependencies'.
What was and what is now the official denomination of the State of Bahrain? What
was the meaning of the term 'dependencies'? What was the legal starus of 'the
dependencies ofBahrain', in relation to Bahrain proper before 1971?"
1. International Agreements
Qatar has the following conunent on Bahrain's response ta the first question.
In answer ta the question whether there were any international agreements concluded by the
United Kingdom with third States in the name ofor on behalf of Qatar and Bahrain before
1
1971, Bahrain has referred to its agreement of 22 February 1958 with Saudi Arabia •In this
regard it states that "On one occasion, the United Kingdom authorised the Bahrain
1
QM. Annex IV.:?.\6,VoL Il, p. 235. -2-
Government to conclude a treaty directly with Saudi Arabia", and refers to an article byE.
Lauterpacht entitled "The Contemponiry Practice of the United Kingdom in the Field _of
International Law- Survey and Commentary, VI"!.
In its comments, Bahrain has however failed to point out that the author speke of the
"validation" of the agreement with Saudi Arabia, and that he further noted that "Although
Bahrain is a British protected State, the Agreement appears to have been concluded without
the direct participation of the British Govemment" •
2. "Babrain and its dependencies"
With regard to Bahrain's response to the second question, conceming "Bahrain and its
dependencies", Qatar would comment as follows.
Bahrain maintains that before 1971, the official denomination of Bahrain was "Bahrain and its
Dependencies". No evidence has been provided in support of this allegation.
On the contrary, after 1861, as Qatar bas shov.n in its observations of29 June 2000 on Judge
Vereshchetin's question, in none of the treaties or official documents mentioned by Qatar and
dating from prior to 1971 was Bahrain's official denomination given as "Bahrain and its
dependencies". Moreover, the practice of Bahrain prier ta 1971, in the context of the
conclusion of international agreements in its own right, was not to utilise what it now claims
to have been the official denomination of the territory at that time. Thus, Bahrain's agreements
with Saudi Arabia of 22 F.ebruary 1958J and with Iran of 17 June 1971 5,refer only to "the
Government of the Shaykhdom of Bahrain'' and the Govem.ment of "the State of Bahrain",
respectively.
Nor indeed did the United Kingdom, in taking the necessary action to secure the extension of
multilateral conventions to Bahrain, use the expression "Bahrain and its Dependencies" in its
:7 I.C.L.O.,(1958) 519.
3 Ibid.p.S s.
~ QM, Annex 1V.216, Vol. 11,p.235.
5 QM, Annex IV.264, Vol. 12. p. 111. -3-
notifications to the depositary power; instead, it consistently referred simply to ''Bahrain".
Such was the case,. for example, with regard to the four Geneva ·conventions of 12 August
1949 for the Protection of War Victims t,e Exchange of Notes of 9 April 1968 between the
United Kingdom Governrnent and UNICEF 7,the Convention of 7 September 1956 on the
Abolition of Slave~ the Exchange of Notes of 18 January 1968 between the United
9
Kingdom Government and the United Nations Special Fund and the Convention against
Discrimination in Education of 15December 1960 10•
Bahrain has, moreover, provided no evidence for its statement. at footnote 2 of its response,
that "The terrn 'and its Dependencies' was used by Britain throughout the Gulf to describe the
various continental and/or island appurtenances of Gulf States".
As for the meaning of the terrn "dependencies", Bahrain acknowledges that "there is no
established defmition of the terrn 'dependencies'as used in relation to Bahrain".
Bahrain then makes a series of references to various documents in an attempt to establish such
a definition. First, it relies on the appearance of the word "dependencies" in the 1820 and 1861
treaties. However, as Qatar has already pointed out in its ·own observations on Judge
Vereshchetin's second question, the word disappeared in subsequent treaties and official
documents concerning Bahrain, following the recognition of Qatar as a separate entity in
1868.
Bahrain notes that, in its Application, Qatar stated that until 1868 the peninsula was
considered a "dependency of Bahrairi". However,. Qatar has also demonstrated that any such
link was tenuous at best, and that Lorimer observed that the Sheikh of Bahrain's "suzerainty"
6Treatv Series No. 39/1958.
7
8TreaN Series No. 71/1968.
TreaN Series No. 73/1957.
9Tre Ser~esNo. 7711968.The precise wording of this Exchange of Notes is significant. as it demonsrrates that
the Govemmem of Bahrain v.-as fully a\>;-arethat reference was being made simp!y to Bahrain, and not to
"Bahrain and its Dependencies":
"I have the honour to propose that. in accordance v.ith the desire of the Govemment of Bahrain, the
fo!la\>;ingagreements shal\ be regarded as extended to Bahrain, for the conduct of whose international
relations the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem Ireland are
responsible~.
10
Treaty Series No. 44/1962. 11
over Qatar by the middle of the 19th century was more apparent than real • Lorimer further
observed that:
"In 1868direct negotiations took place betweenthe British Government and the tribal
Shaikhs of Qatar; and, in the result, the interest of the Shaikh of Bahrain in Qatar was
limited to the receipt of tributes probably on behalf of the Wahhabi Govemment of
Najd. In 1872 the Turks established a garrison in Dohah; and with the cessation of the
Wahhabi Zakat the political connection, such as it was, between Bahrain and Qatar
came toan end~ 1".
For the period after 1868, Bahrain has produced a number of extracts from documents dating
from 1873-1874 in an attempt to show that at that time Zubarah was a "dependency" of
Bahrain. Leaving aside the fact that these are merely statements made by or attributed to the
Ru!er of Bahrain at the time, Bahrain fails to indicate that the British had always rejected this
idea, stating in particular in 1873 that "the Chief of Bahrein should, as far as practicable,
abstain from interfering in complications on the mainland" and that "the Chief of Bahrein
had no possessions on the mainland" and, in 1875, that he should not "entangle himself in
the.affairs ofthe mainland ofKatar" 15•
Bahrain next refers to the Political Agerit'sletter of 30 July 1933 which mentions the Ruler of
Bahrain having stated "that the Foreign Office knew thatthese islands are the dependencies of
Bahrain and that there is a ninety year old agreement somewhere to this effect" 16•In addition
ta the fact that Bahrain appears ta have been unable to frnd any relevant documents for the
period from 1874to 1933 conceming its alleged "dependencies",Qatar has already shawn that
the reference ta the so-called "agreement" is pure conjecture based on hearsay and that this
17
document bad never been produced or ever seen by anyone • Furthermore, Bahrain does not
mention the factthat immediately following the Ruler'sletter of 30 July 1933, the British:
12QM. Annex II.4. Vol. 3,p.109, atp. 141.
Ibid.
IlQM, Annex II.7, Vol. 4, p.9, at p54.
14Ibid.,p.61.
ISIbid.,p. 63.
16QM, Annex III.87, VoL 6, p. 448.
17
CR 2000/17. p.29, para. 14 and CR 2000/18, pp. 17·18, paras. 6-8. - 5-
declared that "Hawar Island is clearly not one of the Bahrain group" (Telegram
8
dated 31 July 1933)1 ;
referring to a map that showed "the main island of Bahrain, the islands of
Muharraq, Sitrah and Nabi Salih and certain islets", but not "the island of
Unun Nassan (and sorne petty islets)", concluded that "The whole of the
islands shown on the enclosed map, and also Umm Nassan and the petty
islands... are included in the general tenn Bahrain Islands" (Despatch dated 4
August 1933Y 9: in ether words, there is no mention in this description of the
Hawar islands, inter a!ia, as being "dependencies" of Bahrain; and
considered that the prospecting licence granted by Bahrain concemed "'the
whole of the territories under' the Sheikh's 'control"' and that "This seems
clearly to exclude areas in Qatar and presumably also would exclude Hawar
which belongs in any case geographically to Qatar ... " (Letter dated 9 August
1933r 0•
Bahrain finally invokes the fact that in 1950, it was the United Kingdom's role to issue visas
for travet to Qatar whereas -therewas no visa requirement for Bahrainis travelling to Zubarah.
Qatar's comments of p July 2000, concerning Bahrain's use of five documents dating from
1950 in its oral pleadings, respond to this argument by demonstrating what was the true
import of the 1950 arrangement entered into by Bahrain and Qatar through British mediation.
The foregoing points confmn what Qatar has already stated in its observations of 29 June
2000 on Judge Vereshchetin's second question concerning the meaning of the terrn
"dependencies" of Bahrain. Furthermore, contrazy to what Bahrain states at page 4 of its
answer, the items that itbas listed can hardly be said to establish orto reflect a practice, and
they even fail to mention sorne ofthe territories or features that Bahrain asserts were covered
by the terrn "dependencies" in the Exchange of Notes of 15 August 1971. Qatar can only
sunnise that the United Kingdom Govemment made reference, in Sir Geoffre'yArthur's letter
18
19QM, Arutex III.88, Vol. 6, p. 451.
QM, Annex III.90, Vol. 6, p. 459.
20QM, Annex III.91, VoL 6, p. 467. ~6-
of 15 August 1971 to the Ruler of Bahrain, to "the State of Bahrain and its Dependencies"
because certain of the instruments constituting the "special treaty relations" between Bahrain
and the United Kingdom which it was proposing to terminate, notably the Preliminary Treaty
of 1820 and the Friendly Convention of 1861, contained reference to the "dependencies" of
Bahrain. The logical conclusion is that the term had no particular meaning at the time of the
Exchange ofNotes, other than possibly a geographical distinction between the principal island
of Bahrain and the ether islands in its inunediate vicinity.
Moreover, with regard to the legal status of its "dependencies" before 1971, Bahrain states in
its response to Judge Vereshchetin that there was no legal distinction between "Bahrain
proper" and "its dependencies". If there is no legal distinction between Bahrain and its
"dependencies", the meaning of "dependencies" is devoid of any specifie official significance.
Insofar as Bahrain appears to be introducing additionaJ arguments by suggesting that there
was British recognition of Zubarah as a dependency of Bahrain, the true facts of the case
provide no support for such a suggestion. This aspect will be dealt with more fully in the
context of Qatar's separate response to the contentions advanced by Bahrain, on the basis of
five new documents, in its second-round oral pleading.
Finally, in footnote 12 at page 4 of its answers, Bahrain states that "It will be observed that
Qatar did not have dependencies''. This statement is irrelevant to Judge Vereshchetin's
question, which did not concem the dependencies of Qatar. Nevertheless, Qatar must take
issue with it, insofar as it is unfounded. In this connection, it may be noted that Article 1 of
the Qatar Order in Council of 9 March 1939 stated as follows:
"The limits of this order are Qatar and the coast and islands of the Persian Gulf, being
within the territories of the ruling Sheikh of Qatar, including the territorial waters of
Qatar adjacent to the said coast and islands, and all territories, islands, and islets which
may be included in the territories and be the possessions of the ruling Sheikh of Qatar,
together with their territorial waters"1•
11British and Foreign State Papers 1939, VoL 143. His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1951, p. 19. While this Order in Council does not use the terrn "dependencies" in referring to the territories
•
to which it pertains, the same is true of the Bahrain Order in Council of 191J 22,which is
couched in similar terms. In other words, although Qatar has never used the term
"dependencies" to refer to its territories beyond the lirnits of the peninsula stricto sensu, itwas
clearly on the same footing as Bahrain as regarded possessions outside its main territory.
There is thus no basis for Bahrain's contention that its "dependencies" include, inter alia,ali
the islands and low-tide elevations lying between its eastern coast and the western coast of
Qatar.
2
~BSD, A.nnex 2, p. 35. 13 July 2000
QATAR'SCOMMENTS ON THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY BAHRAIN IN
ITS SECOND-ROUND PLEADINGS WITH REGARD TO THE FIVE NEW
DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ZUBARAH
1. By letter to the President of the Court dated 21 June 2000, Bahrain sought
authorisation to produce new documents with a view to responding to Judge Vereshchetin's
question as to the meaning of the expression "Dependencies of Bahrain". Qatar did not abject
to the production of such documents. Since Bahrain used those documents during its second
round pleadings, whereas it was allowed ta use them only in the context of its responses to
Judge Vereshchetin, the Court authorised Qatar to conunent upon the contentions put forward
on 28 June 2000 by Bahrain on the basis ofthose documents, and ta submit its conunents by
1
13 July 2000 Th• comments that follow show that the documents that Bahrain requested
authorisation to produce in response to Judge Vereshchetin's questions and which it used in its
oral pleadings provide no support for any of the arguments put forward in this regard, once
they have beenput in their proper historical context.
2. The documents that have been produced by Bahrain, ali dating from 19j0, relate ta an
arrangement that was entered into by Bahrain and Qatar through British mediation. For a
proper understanding of the rneaning of these documents, they must be examined in the
context in which they arase.
3. It will be recalled that, following the 1937 incidents 2, relations between Qatar and
Bahrain bad deteriorated significantly, with the imposition by each side of a kind of embargo
3
on the circulation of persons and goods •Ill an attempt to calm the situation, the British
succeeded in obtaining the signature by the two Rulers, on 24 June 1944, of an agreement
that, in sum, provided for the restoration of friendly relations between Qatar and Bahrain, and
the maintenance of Zubarah in the same state as in the past, without prejudice to Qatar's rights
1Letter from the Registrar of the Cowt to Qatar, dated 28 JlUle2000.
~QM, paras. 8.39-8.43.
3
Ibid., par8.44.. 2
to exploit any oil that might be discovered ther Neevertheless, the Ruler of Bahrain
continued thereafter to clairn that he should be acknowledged to have private rights at
Zubarah'.
4. It is against this background of repeated claims by the Ruler of Baluain that the 1950
arrangement must be viewed. The sequence of events was as follows:
On 3 September 1949, the Foreign Office took the view that Great Britain should try to
remove the Ruler of Bahrain's "sense of grievance" 6•The Foreign Office noted that the
Ruler of Bahrain was not claiming extraterritorial rights at Zubarah and that he
recognised "Zubarah as Qatar territory", but itconsidered that the Ruler bad private or
tribal rights at Zubarah· •owever, the Foreign Office admitted that "we could not
impose an interpretation of the 1944 agreement favourable to him" (the Ruler of
Bahrain) and that they could do no more than use "our good offices to secure an agreed
interpretation [of the 1944 agreement] between the two Sheikhs"a. Accordingly, the
Foreign Office suggested that a solution should be sought whereby the Ruler of Qatar
would agree that certain members of the Al-Kbalifah family could go to Zubarah, on
condition that the Ruler of Bahrain would not abuse this "permission". An attempt
might also be made to find a compromise over the fort at Zubarah, with regard to
which the Political Resident considered that the Ruler of Qatar was "fully justified in
maintaining the garrison" 9.It may be noted, in passing, that contrary to Bahrain's
assertion (see, paragraph 7, below), this was far from being a colonial situation, with
the administering power imposing its authority at will.
On 12 October 1949, the Foreign Office expressed the view that an attempt might be
made to obtain from the Ruler of Qatar the admission of:
· bid., para. 8.46.
5 Ibid., paras. 8.47-8.49; QCM, para. 5.38(\)(ii)-(vi).
6
7 BM, Annex 194. Vol. 4p. 838.
Ibid.
K Ibid.
9 Ibid. 3
"sorne vague rights which might be likened to the rights which Bedouin completely
unfamiliar with notions of territorial sovereignty and artificially drawn frontiers claim
in moving across desert frontiers" 10•
The main objective would be to find for the Ruler of Bahrain "sorne face-saving
deviee" which would make a settlernent possible, white conserving "the reasonable
rights ofthe Sheikh ofQatar" 11•
As was usual on questions of this kind, the Ruler of Qatar was consulted. Thus, on
25 January 1950, the Political Agent in Bahrain wrote to the Ruler of Qatar that the
Ruler of Bahrain "does not claim sovereignty over Zubarah or any other part of Qatar
territory" but sirnply wished to:
"send his dependents with their flocks for grazing to the Zubarah area without
supervision from anyone and without the imposition of Customs or ether controls on
2
such people, as was the custom in the past"r •
The Political Agent added that he hoped that the Ruler of Qatar would "give the
113
deepest consideration to this proposal' •
Following direct discussions between the Political Agent in Bahrain and the Ruler of
1
Qatar on 16 and 30 January, and the Ruler of Bahrain on 1 and 22 February 1950 \
and various exchanges of correspondence, arrangements were made through the
British authorities. These arrangements may be ascertained from the discussions and
the correspondence exchanged between the parties and the British over a period of
more than one month. Without entering into the details ofthese negotiations, it may be
seen that an arrangement was adopted on, inter alia, the following points:
• the Ruler of Qatar agreed that the Ruler of Bahrain could send approximately 150 to
200 persons to Zubarah;
10BM, Annex t95, Vol. 4, p. 840.
11lbid.
1
~QM, Annex III.266, Vol. 8, pp. 320-32\.
- lJ/bid,.,p.321.
14QM, Annex III.269, Vol. 8, pp. 333-337. 4
• neither such persons nor the Al-Khalifah would undertake any building works or
cultivation at Zubarah;
• no Bahraini resident who had migrated from Qatar could come to Zubarah;
• ten subjects of the Ruler of Qatar could go to Bahrain without a "pass";
• Qatar'ssovereignty and administrative rights at Zubarah were preserved;
• the Ruler of Qatar's fort at Zubarah would remain empty; its two watchmen would live
in a tent close by;
• the transit dues levied by Bahrain on goods destined for Qatar would be reduced from
5% to 2% ad va/oremH.
5. It was in this context that on 21 March 1950 the Ruler of Bahrain issued a
proclamation authorising his subjects to travel freely to Qatar, except to Zubarah, where they
could go only if so authorised by the Ruler of Bahrain 1•
As will be shov.n in paragraph 9, below, even this arrangement was tenninated by the Ruler of
Qatar in 1953.
6. In his pleading of28 June 2000, Mr. Jan Paulsson made four contentions, based on the
17
five new documents :
(l) Bahrain was not a sovereign State;
(2) Zubarah was not Qatar;
(3) the question of Zubarah has remained unsettled; and
(4) the reality on the ground was Bahraini.
These four contentions will be examined in tum.
15Ibid., pp335-339.
16Ibid.,p. 338.
17 ooon; ·4 -6·. l""'.,..,
CR 2 --· pp. ) ·) , paras.----. 5
(1) Bahrain was allegedlv not a sovereign State
7. In the first document produced by Bahrain, which was a letter to Belgrave dated
18 March 1950, the Political Agent wrote that Great Britain retained the right, and it was not
for Bahrain, to grant visas for persans to visit Qatar, Kuwait or other Gulf States. In addition,
l'v1rP. aulsson inferred, from the same letter, that the Ruler's decrees were subject to the prior
approva1 of the British authorities. On this basis, he concluded that Bahrain was not a
1
sovereign State s.
In fact, the document is ambiguous and does not prove much: first, with regard to visas,
generally speaking, the granting of visas falls within the jurisdiction of the State that is visited,
and not within that of the State from which the visiter originates. Even if the rules that were
applicable at the time to relations between Great Britain and Bahrain provided that Great
Britain retained the right to authorise Bahraini residents to travet abroad- and Bahrain should
have demonstrated this by citing a specifie legal text, which it did not do - this prerogative
might seem to be a normal consequence of Great Britain's responsibility for the conduct of the
foreign relations of Bahrain and Qatar, in accordance with the provisions of the treaties of 22
December 1880 1, 13 March 1892 20 and 3 November 1916 11• This did not mean that,
othetwise, Bahrain and Qatar were not sovereign States.
Moreover, it will be seen from the two letters annexed hereto that in 1959 the Ru1er of Qatar
himself requested the Political Agent not to issue visas to certain persons 1, and that in 1960
the Political Agent declined a request for assistance in obtaining a visa, explaining that "this
was a matter for the Immigration Departrnent of the Qatar Govemment" 1• This shows that at
least in Qatar, even if itwas the British authorities who retained the right formally to deliver
visas, the issuance of visas was subject to the approva1 of the Qatari authorities.
18
111bid.,p. 55.paras. 14·15.
QM, Annex II.36, Vol. 5, p. 117.
20QM. Annex 11.37,Vol. 5, p.121.
11QM. ArutexH.47. Vol. 5. p. !Si.
22Lerter frOfflCommandant of Police to PoliticalAgent in Qatar.dated 2 August 1959.
23
Lener from Po!itica!Agentin Qatar to Conu11and::m tfPolice, dated 5 Ju!y1960. 6
As regards Bahrain's assertion that the decrees of the Ruler of Bahrain were subject to prier
approvaJ by the British authorities, no basis for such an assertion is to be found in the letter of
18 March 195O. The particular proclamation in question concemed a matter of foreign
relations between Qatar and Bahrain, for which the British were responsible by virtue of their
special treaty relations with Bahrain and, moreover, it was being issued pursuant ta the
arrangements negotiated by the British for Bahraini visits to Zubarah (see, paragraph 4,
abave).
Consequently, the Ietter of 18 March 1950 provides no support for Bahrain's assertion that
Bahrain was not a sovereign State.
(2) Zubarah is allegedlv not a part of Qatar
8. Bahrain contends that in the draft proclamation whereby Bahrain authorised its
subjects togo ta Zubarah, the Ruler of Bahrain replaced the expression "the Zubarah area of
Qatar", which bad been used in the draft prepared by the Political Agent, by "Zubarah",
without mentioning Qatar. Bahrain seems to conclude from this that the Zubarah area was not
considered to be part of Qatar.
Regardless of the fact that such a conclusion would be in contradiction with the consistent
declarations by the British, since 1873, that Bahrain had no rights in or to Zubarah "\ the
history of the events fonning the background to the documents produced by Bahrain shows
that this conclusion in no way corresponds to the historical reality.
Furthermore, against the backgroWid detailed above, the fact that the words "of Qatar" were
crossed out of the original draft proclamation, prepared by the Political Agent, cannat in any
2
way imp!y recognition that Zubarah belonged to Bahrain s. The arrangement viewed as a
whole shows, on the contrary, that it was within the framework of its own sovereignty,
26
expressly recognised under the arrangement, that Qatar accepted certain "concessions" in
z4QM, paras. 8.16, 8.19etseq.,8.24, etseq.,8.42,et·seq.etc.
25It may be noted that there is no indication of who crossed out the words "of Qatar" in the draft proclamation, or
26 when they were crossed out
Q:M. Annex IIL269, Vot. 8. p. 339. 7
exchange for certain advantages that were granted by Bahrain, essentially related ta customs -
the reduction in transit dues on goods destined for Qatar.
(3) The question of Zubarah allegedlv remains unsettled
9. Mr. Paulsson referred ta a sentence in the letter from the Political Agent ta Belgrave
dated 18 March 1950. According ta tvlr. Paulsson, the Political Agent wrote that he would be
writing ta Belgrave again "about the concessions which His Highness Shaikh Salman
promised for Qatar in arder ta settle this affair"z Nlr. Paulsson seems to infer from this that
the question of Zubarah was not yet settled and that it remains unsettled today •
The logic of this reasoning and the aim of the argument are not easy to understand. First of ali,
the argument appears to result from a simple mistranslation of the original English text of the
letter. That text does not say "in arder to settle this affair", as was asserted by 'Mr. Paulsson,
but "as a result of the settlement of this affair" (emphasis added), thus ciearly implying that
the affair bad already been settled.
In any event, the concessions by the Ruler of Bahrain to which the Political Agent was
alluding were the reduction in transit dues and the right for certain subjects of the Ruler of
Qatar to travet easily to Bahrain; this did not irnply that the question of Zubarah bad not
already been dealt with. It is true that, subsequently, the Ruler of Qatar was to terminate the
49
1950 arrangement .because of provocative and irresponsible behaviour by Bahrain in 1 9 52
and in 1953 30,but the position as regards Zubarah was made perfectly clear in 1957. At that
time, the British stated to the Ruler of Bahrain that "HMG have never supported any claim by
Bahrain ta sovereignty in Zubarah" and that although, in the past, they had been able to
promote "by negotiation arrangements for certain special facilities for Bahrainis in the area,
and certain limitations on the exercise of sovereignty by the Ruler of Qatar", today (in 1957),
"it does not seem possible for these arrangements and limitations ta be continued as they were
27
CR 2000/22, p. 55, para. 16: "J'espère vous ecrire séparémentau sujet des concessions que Son Altesse te
cheikh Salman a promis [sic) pour Qatar afin de réglercette affaire".
28Ibid., p. 55. para. 17; see, also, p. 56, para. 22.
~9QM, Annex !IL272, VoL 8,p.351. ~
:;QM. Annex Ill.270, Vol. 8, p3~3. 8
before'131•This point wa ~ entioned by Qatar in the oral pleadings 3, but Bahrain did not
directly respond to it.
(4) The reality on the ground was allegedlv Bahraini
1O. Rather obscurely, Mr. Paulsson concluded from the documents produced by Bahrain,
and from the authorisation granted to 150-200 persans and their families to go to Zubarah
(and not to "return" to Zubarah, as Mr. Paulsson mistakenly stated 3:;)that the reality on the
ground "seems rather to have been a Bahraini reality" 34•
On the contrary, Qatar has shawn that Zubarah was uninhabited 35•The fact that in 1950 Qatar
authorised the Ruler of Bahrain to allow a maximum of 200 of his subjects to visit Zubarah
6
(the number being reduced to 50-60 in the Ruler of Bahrain's letter of 21 March 1950,; does )
not mean that the local "reality" actually became "Bahraini''.These few visitors obviously in
no way changed the_legaistatus of Zubarah, which remained under Qatari sovereignty. In any
event, the arrangements as to such visits were terminated after only a short period, in 1953
(see, paragraph 9, above).
Finally, the so-called "Bahraini reality" on the ground is put into perspective by a report of the
Political Agent dated 23 April 1950, which noted that:
"... I have beard nothing about the Bahraini visitors to the Zubarah area ex:ceptthat
they landed there and were not particularly enthusiastic about beine: there" 3•
31QM, Annex 111.284,Vol. 8, p. 411.
32
33CR 200019, p. 17, para. 34 and p. 30, para. 16.
CR 2000/22, p. 56, para. 20: "... le Political Agent s'enquiert du nombre des gens qui vont retourner à
Zubarah" (emphasis added).
:;CR~ 2000/22, p. 56, para. 22.
35
36CR 2000/9, p. 24, para. 52.
It mav be noted thatinthat lener the words "and its environhave been insertedinthe Arabie te:\t\vice,after
the word "Zubarah". There is no indication of who inserted these words, or when they were insened. Also, in the
Ruler of Bahrain's lener of 4 February 1950, the worin Arabie that has been translated as "area" in facemeans
"courtyard", implying that the so-called "Zubarah area'' was restricted to the immediate surrolUldings of the
ruined to'-"n.
37QM, Annex III.269, Vo!. 8, p. 331, at p. 339; emphasis added. 9
The Political Agent added that:
"... it now seems that few of the people who migrated from Zubarah and, whom the
Shailm [of Bahrain] has always described as yearning to return there, now want togo
back. This somewhat comic situation Shaikh Salman is, not unnaturally, not prepared
3
to admit" s.
* * *
In conclusion, the five new documents provide absolutely no support for the arguments put
forward by Bahrain and provide no answer ta the questions posed by Judge Vereshchetin.
38Ibid.at pp.337·338. Police Heaclauortero
OP/0.15 The Fort - :Rur~;ailcth
D 0 HA
2lli1Augunt, 1959·
. Oon:f'idential
::;::========:::z::;:::::z
. H.-B.. 'e Politioéll. Agent,
D o. ~.A.,.
Sir,
I havo the honôur to inform you thnt
.I run inatructed by Hie' Higlmeso Shntldl Ahmod. bin
AJ.i 1ù. Than1 to request thnt npplico.tiona !:or
v-iens made by Representatives o1' the Firm TEF.A -
IDŒORT G•M.E .H., Oet-strasse No 15h, Duseelél.ol"'f,
be ret'Ueed.
I have the hm1our to be,
S:i.r,
Your obedient servant,
. .
Cornruruidant o:f Police.
~.
.... ÜFTI-E·AZAM-
"bdulHannan ofBhuun Sharlf PQ!.ITIG>\L f,~.
DOH/t.
July ~, ·19G0.
·;Jth reference. 1.0 <)IIIt~le!;ho:- co~nversn U :Ht ye;;terd;;1y
r enclose fi visiting CNrr.l o1' S<.'.h-~l ·.7.t~v .lmavm of
Bhutan Sharif'o
Abdul. HannEtn h~tn b:::cn tn•ing for f'·•)metirne/;,•)btain
visos to corne l1ere f'rürn f'akist·nn f'or hlmoclf :-.n,l f'or
twenty !'our ai' hü: f'o11owern o Tètey have: Oflhl t.lut t l1ey 1
wish ta vis1t the J'li'riùicommuüty in Dohao On itu:tructionG
from the Im~ê!igrati De);nt.ment visa:h ~~wc :Ln the rmst l!een
r.e!'used· bath for hlm ~out !ù7' his c;-JrnJ.·nnionsbut he has
apparently marwgccl· t<~ cntc•r Q::~.t n:;;tt pill:.rlrnr•:-tw~ning
t'rom the Huj.
':/hen Jl.bdul HF.Inn: c;~nen to ~_:. m;·cyestci'tb.Y, he .::;ought
my l1elp in obtCtining vis~'' fo' lti:-t'flenty l'ou1· co:npl'l!lions
to join llim here. .! ;;::;r.pl;ünethat tlü::;wr•s 11in,,t er- .for
the Im;nigl·ation Dr.:p<,rt:nc:nt·:"lf t.!.).ntnr Ch1v<.::·nmc:n;tlv.thHt
they hEtd turned r.hJ•,-Lhi1S r~·..J. n;~ ~ht pM:;t. !If:-l.hen
o skecl whe t.her I ·.vuul<l•.njt·= ~~ l<?.~.er rcconwr:wll in!· him to
Shai kh Ahmf,d f:IO t)w t.lu'!c<:•U1'.mrd<e hi:. r·~~.tt .·tt::::n;t1!~
to the Shailùl. I f:<:dLlt.lt:dr·.WH8 J1c)tpreptll"Cd lo do thi~
in the flbsene e of' F•ll eco1nrnenfl ;:~ion :for llim f'rozn the
P~ktstsn flllt.horiti es. /\bt1ul !ltHUlflrlshowcrl r;- <1 let ter
t'rom the p,·,litjc~ !ü-gfmcy in Il<·hrt:iiwith e1 1';.'5!1 r1:-,t.e flnù
also a letter he h;-d b~~n g:i.vçn by th~ t;n1ter.1 J\inf~ (HghOI:!
Commis :::.1on er- inK ~: .rl·i wh ic h ;eC'!'red ~intp l,it c• t!1c ir
previous con·e3pomlencP. w ilb u~- nbr)ut th i.::/!lfl:1nl hio
îollowers o /cs I w."!:tUY>ti.ll.ing ta llelp hitn 1\bd1tl Ttoruum
soid th at he would i:t.i.rl.f 0I"r.:1ngc: to :;-.c."'j_khh,,'l1111Nl.
Jl.fI mentioned cm th~ t.elep}hm~. t,hi.nlItL::tt hefore
Shaik11 ft.hmeclmol,ec fi dectsir;n <lbout th:i.s mHil :111•.ün followerz
/, he ehould know t.hot the Pnici~trm P r;l:lUc:--1.Acent f0r th~
~ rtO Khyber district has nuicl th3t t-h'.luln~ln ll:ttm tllltrustworthy
individUEil. 1 He has ~.ls ot;st •.lo~ on bthe F.~uthenti o' ity
~M./ Abd~l Hannan 6 czerlcpt iME :ügncrJ hy n numl!el' of t!'lbnl
-Uuliks from the oren. Tilt'Poli ticnl. /,gent, Kllyber· r~lco
csstu doubt on Jlbdul ltf.lnl18f'l'<Jfes mo~ie:. for visi tine
•,!atsr with his co!ilNHliono,. He OEIYS th.,t the1·-f!' muF.;t be
very t:ew Aîricli s r'Cnid.en t he rr. <~D tdat t.h.oscfi'lre wNtld
hardly be edif'ied by tlt~ r·r·ospect of' l1twing to house and
f'eed Abdul lfnnnnn 'md his perconal îollowerc r.luring their
( J.c. !<ioberly)
R o Cochrane, EG.:.J• , MBE,
Cpmmandemt of' Pnli~e,
DOBA.
Rr-:ST!\I CT.ED
Written Replies to Questions put by Members of the Court: Bahrain and Qatar