29 June 2000
QATAR'S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION PUT BY JUDGE VERESHCHETIN TO
QATARANDBAHRAIN
On 15 June 2000, Judge Vereshchetinput the following question to the Parties:
"Before 1971, were there any international agreements concluded by the United
K.ingdom with Qatar and Bahrain respectively other than those establishing their
relationshipf protection?
Were there any international agreements concluded the United Kingdom with third
States in the namef or on behalf of Qatar and Bahrain before 1971? If so, what is the
statusof these agreements for Qatar and Bahrain now?
Qatar will respond to this question with respect to the situation between Qatar and the United
K.ingdom. Qatar does not express any views regarding the statusany agreements between
the United Kingdom and Bahrain.
On 3 September 1971, Q<~; andarhe United K.ingdom entered into an agreement which
provided underparagraph (2) thereof, as follows:
"The General Treaty of the3rdof November 1916 and the treaties and engagements
which the Stateof Qatar accepted thereunder and ali other agreements, engagements,
undertakings and arrangements between theUnited K.ingdom and the State of Qatar
flowing from the special treaty relations between the two States shall terminate with
effect from the same date".
A copy of this document was filed by Bahrain under Tab 49 ofits Judge'sfolder for Bahrain's
first round presentation, although it had not been previously submitted as partrecord in
the case. A copyof the related correspondence between the United K.ingdom and the Ruler of
the State of Qatar of the same date, which listed the treaties and other instruments which had
been entered into prior to 3 September 1971 between Qatar and Great Britain, was not
included in the Judge's folders provided by Bahrain. Qatar is attaching hereto a copy of the
relevant correspondence which lists, under Annex A and Annex B, the relevant treaties and
other instruments previously entered into between Qatar and Great Britain. -2-
To the best of Qatar's knowledge and belief, these lists include the relevant treaties and other
instruments considered by the United Kingdom to have been concluded between the United
Kingdom and Qatar prior to 1971. While Qatar does not consider that, strictly speak:ing,ali of
the documents so listed constitute international agrper se,Qatar has submitted these
lists as representative of the United Kingdom's views on the matter at the time. In this
connection, it should be noted that the 1916 Treaty between Great Britain and Qatar referred,
in tum, to the 1868 Agreement betWeen Great Britain and the Ruler of Qatar. Consequently,
the 1868 Agreement should be included in the list of relevant agreements. This, in fact, was
implicitly recognized by paragraph 2 of the United Kingdom's letter to the Ruler of Qatar of
3 September 1971 which specifically referred to the 1916 Treaty "and the treaties and
engagements which the Statef Qatar accepted thereunder".
The reference to the "State of Qatar" having accepted varions treaties and engagements
pursuant to the 1916 Treaty is significant. It shows that, despite the fact that Great Britain was
in special treaty relations with Qatar, it still considered the State of Qatar to be an independent
State with the capacity to enter into international agreements. Indeed, as Rende! of the Foreign
Office noted in his memorandum of 5 January 1933 (QR, Annex ll.58, Vol. 2, p. 335;
·····ahrain·Judge'sfolder·Tab- Q5aar·~n·-·aJ:rraliïWerenofcons1dered·"fon partof the
British Empire or of India. They are independent States for the conduct of whose foreign
relations H.M. Government are at present responsible" (QR, Annex II.58,42). The same
view was endorsed by the Bahraini scholar, Al-Bahama, who observed in his publication on
The Legal Status of the ArabiaGulf Statesthat: "It appears that the British Government
treated the Rulers of these Shaikhdoms with whom it directly established official contact as
heads ofindependent governments" (p. 70).
It should also be pointed out in this context that, even prior to 1971, the State of Qatar had
entered into international agreements in its own right. While there are several such
agreements, reference may be made here to three examples to which Counsel referred in
Qatar's oral pleadings. The first is an agreement with Saudi Arabia with respect to the
delimitation of their land boundary and the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Sa1wah,dated
4 December 1965 (CR 2000/17, p. 13, para. 9). The second is an agreement with Abu Dhabi
for the Settlement of the Offshore Boundary and Ownership of Islands dated 20 March 1969
(ST/LEG/SER B/16, p. 483; QM, Annex IV.259, Vol. 12, p. 77). The third is a Continental
Shelf delimitation agreement with Iran dated 20 September 1969 (UNTS, Vol. 789, 1971, - 3-
p. 172; QM, Annex IV.260, Vol. 12, p. 81). In addition, Qatar signed a multilateral Arabian
GulfCurrency Agreementin 1965 (publishedin theOfficial Gazette,No. 2, 19 July 1965)and
a Currency Agreementwith Dubai in 1966(publishedin the Official Gazette, No. 3, 26 March
1966).
As for the secondpart of Judge Vereshchetin'squestion, to the best of Qatar'sIŒowledgeand
belief, there areobilateral agreements concludedby the United K.ingdomand third States in
the name of or onbehalfof Qatar before 1971.
The question whetherthe United K.ingdommay have concluded multilateral agreements with
third States in the name of or on behalf of Qatar is more complex. In the limited time
available, Qatar bas not been able to ascertain the precise position with respect to ali of the
multilateral treaties that might be relevant. Indeed, a full answer to Judge Vereshchetin's
question would necessitate detailed research as to th~ status of each and every one of a
number of multilateral conventions. Such research could be undertaken, but it would take
sometime.
Qatar would note, however, that with respect to the document entitled "International
Agreements to which Bahrain, Qatar and the Trucial States are Bound", communicated to
Bahrain by the Treaty Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and attached to
Bahrain'sletter of 28 June 2000, the document in question does not assist in providing a full
answer to Judge Vereshchetin'squestion. On the face of the document it would appear that,
prior to 1971, a number of international conventions may have been entered into by the
United Kingdom on behalf of Qatar, or extended to Qatar, for whose international relations
the United Kingdom was at the time responsible, normally after consultation with the
Govemment of Qatar.However, apart from being undated (although ali the instruments listed
thereunder pre-date 1971), the document is incomplete (it omits, for example, GATT, IMF,
etc.). Moreover, it does not indicate how, or the extent to which, the United Kingdom may
have signed certain agreements on behalf of or in the name of Qatar, or extended them to
Qatar,and it lists atleast four treaties to which Qataracceded directly. Nor does it indicate the
present statusof anysuch agreements. -4-
Although the document is entitled "International Agreements to which Bahrain, Qatar and the
Trucial States are Bound", it does not include treaties or other international agreements which
Qatar in its own right may have concluded prior to 1971 with third States, to which reference
is made above.
To place the issue in perspective, Qatar has attached to this answer two pages from a
publication that is readily available (The Persian Gulf- Historical Summaries - 1907-1953,
Vol. II, Archive Editions, 1987)which explain the general position with respect to multilateral
conventions. Qatar trusts that this document will be of assistance in response to this aspect of
Judge Vereshchetin'squestion.
Qatar would also point out that it became a member of OPEC in 1961, an Associate Member
ofUNESCO in 1962, an Associate Member of the WHO in 1964, and an Associate Member
of the FAO in 1967. Qatar also acceded to the Universal Postal Union in its own right in
1969. '
CO.tl?IDElrJ.'l.A.L
t 1 have the hohour ~o .-o.fer tothe te~UOA ot't~ apeoial
1x-e6&tyrele.Uona bètween the Sta.h of'QA.tl\and.th& UAitod. Xi.ngd,om
o~O:t•f ;tl~i.t a.ncUqrlhern l:nlan ~lù.obtakf.pa o.fteot o4 tods,y•s
~to. 1t irlt~ undemaudi.UB' ot tho OovqX'ilii:Qt rthé United.~Ill
t~i. the tna:Uu at&dothe S~.l1trtrwŒnb l.iriebi A.t:mexA to thinlett~).>
1.1$.lnooordi..n«lY 'naarcled ae to2:'111iMteâ.at':roŒ tha~te, to the
exteu1. tM.t·~~.Y gi.ve riseto rightlll,c:>'bliga'Uone aan-angeJIIElJ\teh
betweon tb.e U.nihd ~ltl ~ .Qa~u.
'.tb$ Q.uoiJtornthe oont:l.ausd V&111d!t;,:fzwy, ot ~- El\10h
trea110.& Qtl.otb.o:inet~n'h p betweD Qatar aD4.crthoxStateta18
no1. e.f'too-tlv.JIUOht~UoJ\e tlae q'Wirilo.ot th$pari1o1J!4UOD.
ot Qatar- ita~rlain ~iU..tonl ~te:t'll&U oO.v8ll:.oll(lof a ge:ae:x-al • '·
o'bà1o~ ac: "teoO~OJUI(~ aorpa\.eb'e
»ver.r eftc:>lMa bHn 111946to u~ ths.tthe l:lu11A Annex
A to thi• léltterb ~ote. ~ver, it b tb, =44tmandiug ot <the
Oovt:mJqant.CJtthe Un.ite4th~• tb&t aU treaties AA4 arr~JIIè l'.lta
._.. tlo1111ngtroa tho fSPfOial'tn&t nl&tlou 'botwe•a thetwo uta.teu,
whl)theJ!or .JJ.tnol\U! Ù\ the 11P't1wlll be :re~ u tet·alina:tead
excopt 'l:o:the aeree•uie sM. otbu 1nfttZ'\211QJ1)4ob a:re l111'tucl
Anné~ lJto WB loUer and Wbiob.will 'be tho w.'bjeoof'i'urlb.e:r-
t.IEIQU&eio.n
I woul.d o.Bk·Your Hig}moa1;Qloe>nti:rm ilht~ ~PGnt
lotte.r.:ù..uoor.reot]Jriates t.tauM.e~«oM~ o~ the Oove~t o~
~tar in thi• -.tter II.D. Em.O'thq.'ld-11letter and ~ n.Pl-7 to
tha't tltf.,will Plao$ on l"'Gé01the 1Ul4enta.n det~oen the two
b-overnm~~ :utt:J1J1atte~.
I q.va.l11\Y110lt tb.iuopparl~t ty X'ObGWto fol'U'
Highnoep the aet~oo"' ot'111b1tbelri ~nBi~tion.
Ber ~tannio MoJe.tT Pollt1oal
&ertd.4ent
His Hi,~DII lihe.i ~d '))iAli AJ....,IllhŒJi
kuler ot 'ha titateof ~o.tDJ.•(1) 081\$~ 'h'ea.otr1916 andtba treq.'U•a cmd
è~UtiJ 1aJM.ha.tu-aQOë;ptetbeNW:ldel'S
(2)
())
~e'O ot ltttet-ot 1960Qn theAooeed.cm
ot Hiau.~. ..the nulorc
(4) ConeÇ®~ oonoel'Ulu~t1111Q b,y1111~n
.
nlàteclmttera.(193 and."~ da.'Her)l
(5) .kohul$11ot1t.>t~~ eraetbl & pol1t'.$.Qal·~
~~· 't>GI'tŒ1l am4oU ~èiiJi~
ô~&Wi···
(~) Conot~pon rd$1n!7e 1958 - 1963Oôl104tniJ:a&
!JlterulPetOQri.V., (2)
"t~1111ti of.Hel~est)" 1'311riDdiotcd.b
anoWv;r •tto~ (1.97•)
(3) Jb:nben&orX..tto:OMO$l'11UIleHd.jeart~(·
PQlliioal.U.eiùa(1.971).
(4) ~ ot lott of 971 l.2:'t tQ~SQM
1U.lit4U7 Dt~ 1m4Ont%tf: lr)1'i•~•
_, TIIE
PERSIAG NULF
HISTORICA SULMMARIES
1907-1953
Volume II
Historical Summary of Events in the
Persian Gulf Shaikhdoms:and the
Sultanate of Muscat and Oman
1928-1953
TEXT AND APPENDICES
ARCHIVE EDITIONS
1987 5
(ix}The standard of administration and justice in the Shaikhdoms must be
constantly improved. In particular an advance must be made in the
Trucial States.
(x) The maintenance of good relations with Saudi Arabia is highly desirable
and solutions must be sought to outstanding disputes.
(xi}The oil comparues must be free to develop their concessions. Their
relations with the States must be kept under closereview at aUtimes..
.(xii) The facilities enjoyed by Her Majesty's forces mube maintained.(2')
The question of Anglo-American relations in the Persian Gulf referred to in
item (vi) above iSdealt with in the chapter on Bahrain (Chapter 2, paragraphs
JOJ-105).
14. In 1951 His Majesty's Govemment, in discussing the question of
jurisdiction,expressed the view that the ultimate aim in the Shaikhdoms should be
to unify the two systeD"ow in existence,i.e., the Courts set up under the Orders
in Councii and the Rulers' Courts, so that there should be only one set of Courts
which would bethose of the Rulers, though itwas admitted that this was a long
term.policy. In the short term it was necessary to encourage the development of
the local judicial systems and to improve the Order in CouDCJlsystems so that
both might be J;>e equtepred to meet modem requirements. It was pro~
that the law ensting or evolved for the Courts established under the Orders 1n
CounciJs.hould be applied in the Joint Courts so that thesemight become an avenue
through which improvements could be achieved in the Rulers' Courts. In the
matter of legislationon subjects of common concem to persons subject to both sets
of Courts; the view taken was that the Rulers' laws and the Regulations issued
nnderthe Ordersin Council should besimilarin form as weil as in subject. A law
shonld firstbe made by the Ruler and then applied by King's Regulation to
persons subject to the Order in Councii concemed. As the successof this method
was dependent on the acceptance by the Rulers of the assistance of His Majesty's
Govemment in the drafting of thèirlawsit was considered desirable that not only
should the tradition of assisting in the drafting of laws be establisbed but that the
Rulers should beencouraged to improve their judicial and legislative machinery
by such measures as the employment of British legal adv:isefs.f•)
15. In 1945( and~)again in 1950 the Political Resident raised the question
of the right ofHis Majesty's Govemment to sign international agreements on ·
behalfof the Rulers without consulting them with specialreference to the Chicago
Air Agreements, under which it is in fact claimed that the Gulf Shaikhdoms are
United Kingdom territory for civil aviation purposes. On the latter occasion .
the views of His Majesty's.Govemment were that whenever possible the Rulers J
should be consultedand their consent obtained before anyinternational agreements
were entered into on their behalf, becauseHis Majesty's G.ovemment's rights in .
the sphere of internai affairs were limited and because of the embarrassment that ·
might be caused ü they went beyond their agreement with the Rulers.fs) Prior,
consultation might not, however, always be possible. and HiS Majesty's :
Govemment's position as Protecting Power required that. the Rulers should in
the Jastresort be prepared to be guided by them and accept their advice. Legally
the validity of the international obligations accepted in respect of the Shaikhdoms
was not aft'ectedby fallure to consult the Rulers first.It was thus held that
His Majesty•sGovernment and the Rulers were committed to carry out the terms
of the Chicago Agreem~ nntrespect of the Gulf Shaikhdoms and indeed the
terms of 16 othee multilateral agreements signed since 1945 which were
deemed applicable to the Shaikhdoms. though subsequently the number of these
was reduced to three.(2') It was suggested that the position should be explained
to the Rulers of"Bahrain and Kuwait but the Political Resident was opposed to
this. The three agreements other than the Chicago Agreements held to be
applicable to the Shaikhdoms were-
(j)the General Agreement on Tari.ffsand Trade of 1949,
(ü)the International Monetary Fund Agreement of 1945,and
(iii) the Bermuda Telecommunications Agreement of 1945.
In 1951the Rulers of Bahrain and Kuwait agreed to the extension of ·
() F.O. to P.R. Dcspatch(EA51053/8) of July 24, 1953.
(..) F.O. to P.R. Dcspat(EA1643/15 of Novembec 20, 1950).
('') 1.0. to F.O. Ext. 5315/45 of November(W.15170/1287/802 or 1945).
(.,F.O. to P.R. · EA 1"511/1of Decembec 19.1950.
(") F.O. to P.R. EA 1511/4 or September 12.1951. 6
the 1926 International Convention on Motor Traffic to tbeir
territories.("')They also asked that the 1949 Road Transport
Convention should be similarlyextended('")but it bad not been ratified
by Her Majesty's Gqvernment by the end of 1953.
In 1952two officiais of the Food and Agriculture Organisation visited Bahrain
and approached the local Government without any prior intim;ttion to the British
political authorities.he British Middle East Officeundertook to advise the Food
arid Agriculture Organisation Officein Cairo to ask their personnel to get in touch
with the Po1itical Residency if they visited Bahrain again.
III.- The Arab League and the Gulf Shaikhdoms
16. The Arab League bas not taken as much interest in the Gulf States as
might be expected and has made no frontal attack on the British position there.
In 1952Sir Roger Makins reported that there were no obvions signs in the Gulf
States of the influence of the League but that he bad no doubt that nationalist
feelingwas not far below the surface.(") Later.in the year Her Majesty's Govern..
ment corisidered that they could not ignore the danger that the politicians of the
Arab League might turn to the Persian Gulf when they bad exhausted the
possibilities of Tunis0a.. Morocco, the Anglo-Egyptian dispute ·and other similar
pretexts forgitation.(" In 1953the Secretary-General of the League was reported
to havestated to the press that it was hoped that the Gulf Shaikdoms would shortly
contributeto the strengthening of the League, and that the legal aspect of the
question was being considered so that the obstacles which hindered the Gulf States
from having relations with the League might be overcome.( 21) The Assistant
Secretary-General subsequently stated, that it was the League's intention to leave
ali political questions aside and to endeavour to establish closer cultural,
educational and sirnilar relations with thehaikdorns.(")
17. In 1951as a result of the attendance of representatives from Bahrain and
Kuwait at an Arab League Educational Conference (para. 19 below)it was agreed
between the Political Resident and the British Middle East Officethat there would
be no benefit in requesting the Arabeague to pass invitations to the Gu1fRulers
tlirough the British authorities, as this rnight prompt them to take steps intended
onlyto annoy His Majesty!s~Gover andmthnttiwas-undesirable .to insist on
the Rulers passing their replies to such invitations through the British authorities.
The Rulers should however be induced to refer aU communications received by
them from the League to the British authorities and to accept the latter's advice:("")
· 18. In 1953Her Majesty's Government issued instructions that the Ruler of
Kuwait should .be informed with particular reference to the Arab League that it
was not their wish to prevent participation by Kuwaitis in any conference or
organisation from which Kuwait might derive positive benefits, but that in view of
the.i~nsibili foryhis foreign relations they expected both to beconsulted about
any inVJtationwhich he m.ightreceive to send representatives to an international
conference or to join any international organisation, and to be givenan o.pportunity.·
to advise him in his own interests to accept or refuse.Replies to such mvitations
should properly be sent through the Political Agent.(..) It was not considered
necessary to say anything on the subject to any of the other Rulers, as Bahrain bad
shown no tendency to disregard the correct procedure and there was no evidence
of any contact between the League and the other Shaikhdoms. The Ruler of
Kuwait in reply promised to cons:ultthe Politipal Agent regarding any approach
from outside on political matters, but saidat he did not think a similar approach
in medical or social matters warranted such action.(..)
19. There is no history of .any relations between the Arab League and the
Gulf Shaikhdoms until 1950when both Bahrain and ~uwai atcepted invitations to
send a representativet~ an Educational Conference at Alexandria. The Bahrain
('') (EA 1081/36 of 1951.)
('") P.R. to F.1921/39 of September -18,1951(GY 6/25 of 1951).
(") Para. 10at p.Sir R. Makins' Report.
(") Tel. from B.M.E.O. to F114of February 17, 1953 (EA 1022/3 of 1953).
C'")B.M.E.O. to F.O10760/01/53 of March 9, 1953 (EA 1022/6 of 1953).
(") P.R. to F.Despatch 16of February 13, 1(EA 1022/2 of 1953).
('')Tel. from F.O. to P12,Saving, of Febtuary 19(EA91022/2 of 1953).
(")Tel. from Kuwait to Bahra63 oMarc 16. 1953 (EA 1022/7 of 1953). 29 June 2000
COMMENTS OF QATAR ON THE QUESTION TO BAHRAIN FROM JUDGE
VERESHCHETIN
Judge Vereshchetin'ssecond question was worded as follows:
"The British Note of 1971 concerning the tennination 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 'depeildencies'?Wb.at was the legal status of 'the
dependencies ofBahrain', in relation to Bahrainproper before 1971?"
Although this question was addressed only to Bahrain, Judge Vereshchetin indicated that
commentby Qatarwould also be welcome. Qatar thereforecomments as follows.
(a) Official denomination of the State ofBahrain
Judge Vereshchetin's question was provoked by the reference to "Bahrain and its
dependencies" contained in the agreement of 15 August 1971 concerning the tennination of
special treaty relations between the United Kingdom and Bahrain • In that agreement, no
definition is given ofwhat such "dependencies" might be. Qatar must state, at the outset, that
this reference to "dependencies" is not opposable to Qatar, which was not a party to that
Agreement. In particular, Qatar cannot be bound by anyinterpretation that Bahrain might put
upon the meaning of that term.
In the early documents in this case, reference was usually made simply to "Bahrain". Thus
both the Preliminary Treaty and the General Treaty of 1820 were signed between the British
Government and the "Sheikhs of Bahrein". The Preliminary Treaty did however refer to
"Bahrain or its dependencies".
1Bahrain Judge's Polder, Document 48.
2BM, Annex 1, Vol. 2, p. 1.
3QM, Annex II.l4, Vol. 5p.9. -2-
The 1861 Friendly Convention was signed between the British Government and Sheikh
Mahomed bin Khuleefa, described as "independent Ru1erofBahrein" 4•It provided for British
assistance in obtaining reparation for eve:ryiz:Yu:rp yroved to have been inflicted by sea "upon
Bahrein or upon its dependencies in this Gulf''.
In subsequent treaties with Great Britain, notably those of 1868 1880 and 1892 reference 6 7,
was simply made to "Bahrein" with no mention of any "dependencies". It is noteworthy that
these treaties were entered into at the time of, or subsequent to, Britain's :firstrecognition of
Qatar as a separate entity from Bahrain.
8
The Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913 referred to "Bahrayn" • The Bahrain Order-in
Council of the same year similarly referred to "Bahrein" and not to any "dependencies" of
Bahrain 9•
Subsequently, official Bahraini documents were headed "Government ofBahrain". This is the
case, for example, ofBahrain's SeabedProclamation of 5 June 1949 10•
Other official documents, such as the Agreement of22 February 1958 betwee:hBahrain and
Saudi Arabia on their continental shelfboundary refer to "The Government of the Shaykhdom
of Bahrain" 11•On the other hand, Bahrain's continental shelf agreement with Iran, concluded
on 17 June 1971, i.e. before the Agreement with the United Kingdom of 15 August 1971,
12
speaks of the Government of the "State ofBahrain" •
In its application of 15 August 1971 to become a member of the United Nations, Bahrain
13
referred to itselfsimply as the "State ofBahrain", withno mention of any "dependencies" •
4 QM, Annex II.20, Vol. 5, p. 45.
5 QM, Annex II.26, Vol. 5,p. 75.
6
QM, Annex II.36, Vol. 5, p. 117.
7 QM, Annex II.37, Vol. 5, p. 121.
8 QM, Annex II.44, Vol. 5, p. 151.
9 BSD, Annex 2.
10
QM, Annex II.55, Vol. 5, p. 219.
11 QM, Annex IV.262, Vol. 12, p.95.
12 QM, Annex IV.264, Vol. 12, p. 111.
13Bahrain Judge's Folder, Document 118. -3-
From time to time during the period prior to 1971, Bahrain may have used a reference to
"dependencies" in its correspondence. Nevertheless, this appears to have been done in a
totally inconsistent and incoherent manner: inmost examples of correspondence, the reference
is simply to "Bahrain", and such references as there may be to "Bahrain and its dependencies"
are wholly exceptional.
Bahrain's Constitution, adopted on 26 May 1973, is entitled "Constitution of the State of
Bahrain". No official denomination is given to Bahrain and no reference to or definition of the
term "dependencies" is to be found in the body of the Constitution. It may however be noted
that Bahrain's official lettersof recent years, such as those that have been communicated to
the Court, are headed "State ofBahrain".
(b) Meaning of the term "dependencies"
The term "dependencies" has no precise significance in international law. To the best of
Qatar's knowledge and belief, the so-called "dependencies" of Bahrain have not been
officially identified under either Bahraini or United Kingdom law. As far as United Klngdom
law is concerned, it is significant that the Falkland Island Dependencies, unlike any so-called
"dependencies" of Bahrain, were formally identified and declared as dependencies by Letters
Patent of 1908". ln view of the Jackof a precise definition under any of the Iaws that might be
relevant, any answer to the question of the meaning ofthe term "dependencies" in the present
case is necessarily speculative.
As has already been noted, the term "dependencies" does not appear to have been used in
treaties involving or concerning Bahrain subsequent to the events of 1867-1868, until the
1971 agreement.
Article 2 of the 1913 Order-in-Council defmed the limits of the Order as being "the islands
and islets of Bahrein, including the territorial waters thereof, and ali other territories, islands,
and islets which may be included in the Principality and be the possessions of the ruling
Sheikh of Bahrein together with their territorial waters". The use of the wording "which may
14See, Waldock, C.H.M., "Disputed Sovereignty in the Falkland Islands Dependencies"B.Y.B.IL.,1948,
p. 311. -4-
be included in the Principality... " suggests that reference was being made to possible future
expansion of the Principality ofBahrain.
It may also have been that in the 1971 agreement, the word "dependencies" was used simply
to describe the islands of the Bahrain archipelago other than the main island, which itself is
called "Bahrain". In fact, as has been shownin Qatar'swritten and oral pleadings, Bahrain was
consistently described, after 1868, as consisting of a compact group of five islands 15•For
example, in 1933, it was stated by Laithwaite, a high India Office official, that the Sheikh of
Bahrain's "dominions may be regarded as consisting of the Bahrein archipelago. The Bahrein.
archipelago consists of the Island of Bahrein, and of the adjoining islands ofMuharraq, Umm
16
Na'assan,Sitrah andNabi Salih" •
(c) Legal status of "the dependencies of Bahrain" in relation to Bahrain proper before
1971
Given that the term "dependencies" seems no longer to have been used in official documents
relating to Bahrain following recognition of Qatar as a separate entity in 1868,it is difficult to
answer the question of "the legalstallis-of 'tli-depenâeiicies-oÎ Babi-am'm-relatlonto Bahrain
proper before 1971".
15See, for example, QR, paras. 3.22etseq.
16QM, Annex III.84, Vol. 6, p. 431.STATE OF BAHRAIN 0-:J >! " 4 Jj.J
Office of the Minister of State L-ljJJI ~jj '.' ï<o
P.O. Box 2088 Y •AAu~
Manama, Bahrain 0:..) ,_.u-~~~
Phone:217721 Fax:215508 't\oo •/\ :~1.9 't \ VV't\:~(A
No:
ICJ-QvB/315
Date:
29 June 2000
His Excellency Mr Philippe Couvreur
Registrar
International Court Justice
Peace Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS
Re: Case Conceming Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar
and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain)
Your Excellency,
1have the honourto provide Bahrain's written response to the questions posed by Judge
Vereshchetin on 15 June 2000.
QUESTION 1
(a) Before 1971, were there any internationalagreements concluded by the
United King dom with Qatar and Bah rain respectively otherthan those
establishingtheir relationshipof protection?
Yes. These treaties are listed in Annex 8 to the letter from the Political Resident to the Ruler
of Bahrain and its Dependencies dated 15 August 1971. AnnexA to the letter lists the
treaties establishing the relationshiprotection that weterminated as from 15 August
1971. Annex 8 lists other treaties between the United Kingdom and Bahrain and its
Dependencies whose validity was not affected by such termination. This letter is attached
asAnnex 1.
To the best of Bahrain's knowledge, Annexes A and8 containa complete list of ali treaties
between Bahrain and the United Kingdom prior to 15 August 1971.
(b) Were there any internationalagreements concluded by the United Kingdom
with third States in the name of or on behalf of Qatar and Bahrain before
1971?
The United Kingdom concluded numerous treaties with third states that applied to Bahrain.
These treaties are listed in a United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office document
entitled "International Agreements to Which Bahrain, Qatar the Trucial States are
Sound". This document is attached as Annex 2. lt shows the state of treaty relations prior to
15 August 1971.
ln addition, by the terms ofArticles of AgreementoftheInternationalBank for
Reconstruction andDevelopment and the Articlesof Agreementof theInternationalOffice of the Minister of State l ,;s:a
.
Page2
MonetaryFund, these agreements were extended, upon the United Kingdom's signature, to
Bahrain. Under the terms of the GeneralAgreementon Tariffsand Trade, GATT applied to
ali territories for whose international relations the United Kingdoms responsible.
On one occasion, the United Kingdom authorised the Bahrain Government to conclude a
treaty directly withudi Arabia. On 22 February 1958, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia thus
concluded an agreement defining the underwater areas belonging to both states. ln a latter
dated 2 June 1958, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office stated: "... on 21 April
1958 Her Majesty's Political Agent in Bahrain wrote a latter to the Ruler of Bahrain saying
that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were prepared formally to waive the
provisions of the Agreement of 1880 and 1892 in so far as the Agreement between the
Ruler and King Saud was concerned, and that so far as Her Majesty's Government were
concerned, the Agreement was thereupon given international validity".1
(c) If so, what is the status of these agreements for Qatar and Bahrain now?
Ali agreements concluded by the United Kingdom on behalf of Bahrain before 1971, or by
Bahrain before 1971 with the approval, prior or subsequent, of the United Kingdom remain in
force, to the extent that their terms so require permit, or unless they have been terminated
in accordance with their provisions.
QUESTION2
(a) -TheBritish Note of1971 conceming the termination-ofspeciartrëàf:Y
relations between the United Kingdom and Bahrain refers to the State of
Bahrain as "Bahrain and itsdependencies".
What was and what is now the official denomination of the State of Bahrain?
The official denomination of Bahrain prior to 1971 was "Bahrain and its Dependencies".
Since 15 August 1971, Bahrain has used the denomination "State of Bahrain" to refer to ali
of its territories.
(b) What was the meaning of the term "dependencies"?
2
There is no established definition of the term "dependencies" as used in relation to Bahrain.
However, the ward "dependencies" appears in a number of documents prior to 1971 in
relation to:
• Article 1 of thPreliminaryTreatyof 1820 between Britain and the Ruler of
Bahrain applied to "Bahrein or its dependencies";3
1
Extract from a letter from Deputy Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office, 2 June 1958, published
by E. Lauterpacht, "The Contemporary Practice of the United Kingdom in the Field of
International Law-Survey and Commentary, VI" (1958) 71.C.L.Q. 519.
2
The term "and its Oependencies" was used by Britain throughout the Gulf to describe the
various continental and/or island appurtenances of Gulf States. Of the seven Trucial States,
three (Fujairah, Ajman and Sha~a hsed the term dependencies as part of their official
names and four (Umm al Qaiwan, Abu Dhabi and Ras al Khaimah) did not.
3
BM Annex 83, Vol.3, pp. 446-447. Treaty text in Aitchison's Treaties, Vol. Xl, p. 233.Office of the Minister of State
Page3
• ln January1823,LieutenantMcleod, PoliticalResident,visited Doha.
lorimer statesthat Mcleod foundthe placeto be a dependencyof Bahrain
and underthe administrationof a Shaikhofthe Al BuAinain; 4
• Article3 ofthe FriendlyConventionof 1861betweenthe UnitedKingdomand
Bahrainprovidesthat the Rulershouldreceivereparation"for every injury
provedto have beeninflicted,or inthe courseof inflictionby sea upon
Bahreinor uponits dependenciesin this Gulf';5
• Paragraph5 of Qatar'sApplicationto the Courtinthe presentcase states:
"Until1868,the Qatarpeninsulawasconsideredbythe Britishas a
dependencyof Bahrain";
• ln 1873,the Rulerof Bahrainreaffirmedhisrightsover Zubarah in the
followingterms:
Zobarehis a propertyunderthe ruleof Bahreinand which belongedto
the Uttoobees[i.e.,the tribeofthe AI-Khalifa]. On referringto the [1868]
Treatyyou willperceivethatZobarehis a dependencyof this lsland.s
• ln describingan attack on Zubarahin 1874,the PoliticalResidentstated:
Zobarahis heldbythe NaimTribewhoare alliesand in sornedegree
dependantsofthe BahrainChief.Thesovereigntyover alithis Coastis
undefined,butthe ChiefsofBahrainhavealwayslookedon Zobarahas
a feudaldependencyof Bahrain.7
• ln a letterto the Political,Lieutenant-ColonelRoss,dated 17 December1874,
the Rulerof Bahrainemphasisedthat "Zobarah... belongsto us and is oneof
ourdependencies."S
• A letterfrom ColonelRoss in 1874 made inthe contextof Ottoman
complaintsagainstBahrain'sactivitieson the QatarPeninsulastates:
"AsregardsZobarah,that placehas beenhithertoconsideredbythe
Sheikhsof Bahrain,pastandpresent,as a dependencyof the Island,
and usedas a summer residence";9
• ln 1933,in contextof oil concessionnegotiations,the PoliticalAgent reported
thatthe Ruleof Bahrainhad stated"thatthe ForeignOfficeknewthese
4 QM Ann. 11.5V, ol. 3, p.143 at 200.
5
Terms of Friendly Convention between Ruler of Bahrain and British Govt., 31 May 1861
(Aitchison's Treaties, Vol. Xl, pp. 234 to 236), BM Annex 8, Vol. 2, p. 112.
6
Translated purport of Ruler of Bahrain's statement of 2 September 1873, BM Annex 19,
Vol. 2, p. 173.
7 Letter from Political Resident to the Secretary to the Govt. of lndia Foreign Department
12 September 1874, BM Annex 21, Vol. 2, p. 180.
8 letter from Ruler of Bahrain, to lt. Col. Ross, Political Resident, 17 December 1874, Ann. 26,
Vol. 2, p. 190.
9
QM Annex 11.7V , ol. 4, p. 62. (See BR, para. 208).Office of the Minister of State
Page4
islands [the Hawar Islands] are the dependencies of Bahrain and that there is
a ninety year old agreement somewhere to this effect";10and
• ln 1950, the Political Agent clarified that it was the United Kingdom's, and not
Bahrain's role, to issue visas for travel to Qatar. The letter stated that there
was no visa requirement for Bahrainis travelling to Zubarah, thus impliedly
acknowledging that Zubarah was a dependency of Bahrain.11
Given the practice established by and reflected in these and similar items, Bahrain took the
reference to "Bahrain and its Dependencies" in the Exchange of Notes Concerning the
Termination of Special Treaty Relations dated 15 August 1971 as including the Hawar
Islands; the Zubarah Region; the islands and low-tide elevations in the waters of the Gulf of
Bahrain and Bahrain's pearling banks.12
(c} What was the legal status of the "dependencies of Bahrain", in relation to Bahrain
proper before 1971?
Before 1971, there was no legal distinction between "Bahrain proper" and "its
dependencies".
Accept, Sir,the assurance of my highest consideration.
JAWADSALIMAL ARAYED •
MINISTEROFSTATE
AGENTOFTHESTATOF8AHRAIN8EFORETHIECJ
10 Letter from the Political Agent to the Political Resident dated 30 July 1933, QM ,ol. 6,
p.448.
11 Submitted to the Court by letter dated 21 June 2000. These documents are discussed at
CR2000/22, p.SS,paras.15-16.
12 lt will be observed that Qatar did not have dependencies. The Ruler of Qatar claimed that
the Hawar Islands were his dependencies. (Letter from Ruler of Qatar to Political Agent dated
27 May 1938, BM Annex 260, Vol. 5, p. 1102). This position was conclusively rejected in the
1939Award.·. Annex 1
BRITISHRESlDENCY,
BAHRAIN,
15 August 1971
Your Highness,
I have the honour to refer to the ter.mination or the
special treaty relations between the State of Bahrain
and i ts De:penâencies and the United Kingdomof Great
Bri tain and Northern Ire land which takes affect on
today' s date. It is the un.àerstanding or the Government
of the United Kingdom that the treaties and other
:instrunents listed in Annex A to this latter will
accordingly be regarded as terminated as :erom that date,
to the extent that they give rise to rights, obligations
and arrangements as between the United Kingdom and Babrain ..
The question of the continued validi ty, if any, of
any such treaties and other instruments as between Bahrain
and other states is not affected by such termination.
The question o:e the :participation of Bahra.in in certain
multilateral international conventions of: a general
character bas been considered separately.
Every effort bas been made to ensure tbat the list in
AnnexA to this letter ~s complete. However, it is the
understanding o:f the Government of' the United Kingdom
tba.t all treaties and arrangements flowing from the
special treaty relations between tb.e two states w hether
or not included in the list, will be regarded as
OONFIDENTIALtemj nated except insof'ar as it has been decided
otherwise "in the course ot the discussions whicb.we
bave had about matters arising in connection with the
termi.na.tion of the special treaty relations and in
particular exce:pt for the agreements and ether
i.nstrŒents which are listed in AnnexB to this letter
and which Will be the subject of :furtb.er discussion ..
I would ask Your Highness to conf'irm that the
present letter·also correctly states the understanding
of the Government of Bal.lrain in this matter and hence
that this letter and your reply to that ·efiect will
:place on record the understanding between the two
Goverm.ents in this matter.
I avail myself' o:f this opportuni.ty to renew to
Your H1gbness the assurances o:tmy highest consideration ..
His Highness Sbai.kh Isa bin Snlman al Khalifa KhCMG
Ruler of Bab.rain and its Dependencies.
COI\TFIJIENTIALAnnex B
C1) Air Navigation Agreement C 1954) and the related
excbange o:f letters o:f3/4 August 1954.
C2) Correspondence and memorandum of' understanding
on land and facilities for defence purposes (1934, 1966
a.nâ 1967).
C3) Sterling Balance Agreement (1968) ..
(4) Exchange of letters on arrangements for the British
Post Office to act as interm.ediary between the Universal
Postal Union and ·the Bahrain Postal Administration (1968) •
(5) Exchange of lettePs concerning the general
retrocession of Rer Majesty' s jurisdiction 1971).
C01"FID:@'iTIALt'
./ INTERNATIONAL AGREEMEN'l'S TO WP.ICH BAHRA!N, Q).'rAR AND THE TRUCIAL STATES ARE BOUND
-.;...
'1tle Date & Place Date of .Trea tySeries anë
ot' signa ture . __._appli ca ti on F.0~ referenc
Constitution of the Food and Quebec Bahrain ) 6 Nov., 1967 TS 4~46
Ggr1cultural Organiiation a~· 16 Oct., 1945 ëmd.
·th ue~it·-a''Në:t:nma
r::~~
:onatltution ot the tJ.N. Educational, London, Bahr ain
~cientif ndc Cultural 16 Uov., 1945 Qatar ...TS 5~/1946
)rganisation Aa~ociate _Cmd, 963
Membera 12 Nov., 1962
JonveJitions for the Protection of
rlarVictime (Red Croas) :
Theae ConventioJas apply to
)onvention for the Amelioration of Ba.hrai.n TB 39/1958
~he Wounded and Bick in Arm.ed Qatar Qmnd.550
rorcea in the Field Trucial States
Gene-va
~onventio fnr the Amelioration of 12 Aug., 1949 "to the extent of Her
the Wounded, Sick and 8h1pwrecked Majeaty's Powers in relation
(enbers or Armed Forcee at Sea to those terri tories"
as rroc 23 SepL., 1957
;onTentlon relative to the treat
nent of Prisoners
~onvention relative to the Protec
tion of Civilian Persona in Time
:>!War
lnternat1onal San1tary Regulations Adopted by W.H.O. Bahrein see 'l'S 22il962 )Il
icd Additionsl amendins 25 May 195:!. Qatar CEJ\0. JtJCi :3
:l.egulatione 26 May, 195~ 'l'rucial 3ta tee
2.3 May, l95o
N - 2 -
~greement between U.K. and UNICEF London, Bahro1n 9.4.1968 TS 75~1953
tor the render1ng of Assistance ln 7 Oct., 1953 TS 7~1968 Cmnd.3733 Cmnd. _98l
any Territory for whoee International
are resp9neible Government of the U.K. Qatar 9.4.1968
TB 70/1968 Cmnd.3732
Protocol to the above Ne" York Trucial Statee 7.4.1969 NB2/1(1969
7 July, 1959 TS 75/1969 Cmnd.4102 Cmnd.88859
Convention on the Abolition or GeneT a, Bahra1n l TB 59/1957
Slavery, the Slave Trade and 7 Sept., 1956 Qatar 6 Sept.l957 Cmnd.257
Institutions and Practicea e1m11ar Trucial States
to Slavery,.supplementary to the
International Convention aigned at TS 73/1957 Cmnd.386
Geneva on·25· Sept., 1926 ·
Agreement between U.K. and the U.N. New York Bahrain 18.1.1968 TB 15/19$0
Special Fund concernins Assistance 7 Jan., 1960 See TS 77/1968 Cmnd.3741 Cmnd.995
!'romthe 8pec1a.J. Fund Qatar 18.41.1968
Bee TS 78/1968 Cmnd.3742
&greement between the U.K. on the one
part and the U.N., certain Spec1alized TS 63/1960
Agoncies or the U.N. and the Int. NeTYYo::-:.t Cmnd.ll78
Atomic-~nerg Aygency or the other part 8 July, 19tiC
ror the Provision of Technical Assia
\ance to the Trust, Non-Se1r-oovernir~
and ether ~drr1tor1e ar whose
responeibleal Relations the U.K. are
~xc:J~nge-:-•o ~tbèlfeti:otee•..:R.!and New York, TB 46/1964
~be Technical Assistance Board of the 10 !.tay1963. Cmnd.2447
O,R. modifying the Agreement or
8 Jo.ly, 1960 - 3-
~~U.k.J:'
Convention againet Discrimination in Paris Bàhra1n 11 Apr., 1962 TB 44/1962
Education ..~..._ 15 Dec., 1960 Cmnd.l760
Jonstitution of the Univereal Postal
Union with Final Protocol, General TS 70/196E
Regulations & ~inal Protocol Thereto Cmnd ..314l
Universal Postal ConTention with Qatar acceded with various TS 71/1966
Final Protocol and Detailed reservations on 31 Jan., 1969 CIIII'.142
Regulations See TS 102/1969 Cmnd.4209
Agreement· concerning Insured Letters Vienna, TB 72/1966
DetailedesRegulations Protocol and 10 July, 1964" Cmnd.3l43
Agreement concerning Postal Parcela TS 7.3/1966
with Final Protoco1, Detai~ed Cmnd.3144
Regulations·& Final Protocol
Thereto
Parties' responses to questions put by Judge Vereshchetin during oral proceedings