..
..
STATE OFBAHRAIN
MINISTROFSTATEFORLEGALAFFAIRS
MINISTER'OFFICE
_________ ,_..>JI
Ret: ________ _
Date:5th December, 1994 ----------"- è--..JI:JI
Comments by the State of Bah ra in
on the Qatari "Act" of 30th November. 1994
1. The Govenunent of Bahrain has given careful consideration to the separa.te
Act filed by Qatar on 3-0thNovember, 1994.
2. This Act is inherently defective. It purports, byits title, tincompliance
wit.h paragraphs 3 and 4 of operative paragraph 41 of the Judgment of the
Court of lst July, 1994, of which sub-paragraph 4 in particular refers to
action by the Parties "jointlyor separately''. Qatar appears to believe that it
was the intention of the Court inthus referring tos~ara actions by the
Parties to pennit Qatar unilaterally to pÙrsue, and indeed amencL the
Application which it filed on 8th July, 1991. For its part,Bahrain finds it
difficult to believethat it would have en the intention of the Court thus to
authorise such a departure from the requirement of the consent of both
Parties on which the Court'sjurisdiction totally depends. Nor does it seem
possible that the Court could have intended to autb.oriseQatar to amend its
Application without theagreementof Bahrain.
3. In remitting the matter to the Parties, the Court did not use any WC?r o
indicate that it was open to Qatar, by its unilateral action, to theedefect
identified by the Court in the original Qatari Application. Nowhere is the
name "Qatar"used alone in this connection. Nor does the Judgment use t:~?.e
words "eitherof the Parties" to indicate that onParty alone could complete
the process of reference to the Court. It is to "the Parties" - and not to
either or one of them - that the Court a!Iorded the opportunity to seise it of
the Case. This reflects the Court'sadherence to the dominant requirement --------
of the consent of the Parties, no less of the Respondent than of the
Applicant.
4. It is the belief of Bahrain that when, in its Judgment, the Court speke in
paragraph 41(4),of "separately", and in paragraph 38 of "separate Acts" (in
the plural) by the Parties, the Court had in nùnd the prospect that the Parties
would conclude an agreement subnùtting the Case to the Court .but
recognised the possibility that the Parties might decide to express that
agreement between them by concordant, and e:ffectively identical, but
nonetheless separate Acts. The Court could not, it is suggested, have had in
mind a process in which one Party alone could play out the ti.melimit and
then by its own separate Act (in the singular) impose upon the other Party a
submission to the wording of which the latter had shown its insistent
opposition.
5. It is Bahrain's submission that the Court did not declare in itsJudgment of
lst July, 1994 that it had jurisdiction in the Case brought before it by virtue
of Qatar's unilateral application of 1991. Consequently, ifthe Court did not
have jurisdiction at that time, then the Qatari separate Act of 30th
November, even when considered in the light of the Judgment, cannot
create that jurisdiction or effect a valid submission in the absence of
Bahrain's consent. Clearly, Bahrain has given no such consent.
6. The submission of a Case to the Court requires the fullcoïncidence of the
intentions of the Parties - one h1U1dredpercent. In the present Case there is
manifestly no such coïncidence. Bahrain feels compelled to make it clear
that it cannot accept that the jurisdiction of the Court has been validly
invoked in the present Case as aresuit of thisfurther Qatari unilateral Act.
7. lt has been repeatedly emphasised by Bahrain that it is for it, and for it
alone, to decide upon the content and wording of any consent that it may
give to the jurisdiction of the Court follo_wing the Jud.gment of lst July,
1994. Bahrain bas in its Report to the Court of 30th November, 1994
explained why, asa matter of principle, it has resisted the pressure put upon
itby Qatar to list the issues in dispute between the two sides in terms which
satisfy Qatar alone.
2
.. .-:- •'......·.....· 8S9S l.GHV 18VD21-VdO W WOH: ·-·-··--- ·-··
8. Every State possessêsthe sovereign right to determine whether it consents
to the jurisdiction the Court and to determine the linùts, conditions and
method of implementation of its consent. Every State also possesses the
sovereign rightto decline to appear before the Court. Bahrain possesses
this right in the,same measure as any other State. Bahrain has.given reasons
for itsdecision not to appear before the Court in the circumstances that
have developed only out of respect for, and as an act of courtesy towards,
the Coüft. However, it remains a fact that the absoluteness of Bahrain's-
sovereign prerogative in this respect cannat be questioned.
#.~-""A.~---/).
DR.HUSA.INMOHAMMED AL-BAHARN/
Agent and Counsel of the State ofBahrain
before the International C(>wtof Justice
3
.•....
Comments by the State of Bahrain on the Qatari ''Act'' of 30th November, 1994