13 July 2000
QATAR'S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION PUT BY JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN
TO QATAR AND BAHRAIN
At the hearing of 29 June 2000, Judge Parra-Aranguren addressed the following question to
both Parties:
"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".
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 tvvopoints, the coordinates
ofwhich 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 of the outer wall may be clearly seen.
The to-wncovered an area of approximately 60 hectares, being about 1500 metres long from
north to south and 400 metres wide from east to west. ltis depicted ·o'nMap No. 10, facing
page 189 of Qatar's Memorial. Today, Zubarah is an archaeological site, having the legal
status of public property owned bythe 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 of the 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
shm.vn. -2-
Traditionally, "Zubarah" has alwaysmeant 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'sAct of
30 November 1994,the relevant issue was stated to be "Zubarah", with no mention of any so
called "Zubarah region". At paragraph 48 ofits Judgment of 15February 1995, the Court held
that:
"It is clear... that clairrisof 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
1
the form ofwords used byQatar accurately described the subject of the dispute" •
1I.C.J. Reports 1995,p.6, ap. 25. 13 July2000
QATAR'S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY JUDGE KOOIJMANS TO
QATAR AND BAHRAIN
At the hearing of 29 June 2000, Judge Kooijmans addressed the following questions to both
Parties:
"Which baselines were used for the determination of the outer limits of the territorial
sea, before the Parties extended the breadthof the territorial sea to 12 nautical miles in
1992 and 1993, respectively?
Are any maps or nautical charts available which reflect these baselines and the outer
limitsof the territorial sea?".
Qatar'sresponse is as follows:
Prior to Amiri Decree No. 40 of 1992 defming the breadth of the territorial sea and contiguous
zone of the State of Qatar, Qatar had no legislation specifically conceming its territorial sea,
and the baselines for the determination of the outer limits of its territorial sea were, therefore,
determined in accordance with customary international law.
To the best of Qatar'sknowledge and belief, Bahrain similarly had no legislation conceming
baselines for the determination of 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 limits of the territorial seas of Qatar or Bahrain, as they
existed prior to 1992 and 1993, respectively. 13July 2000
QATAR'S COMMENTS ON BAHRAIN'SRESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS POSED
BYJUDGE VERESHCHETIN
By letter of 29 June 2000, Bahrain responded to the questions that were posed by Judge
Vereshchetin at the close of the session on 15June 2000. Those questions were the following:
First question
"Before 1971, were there any international agreements concluded by the United
Kingdom 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 ofthese agreements for Qatar and Bahrain now?"
Second question
"The British Note of 1971 conceming the terrnination of special treaty relations
between the United Kingdom and the State of Bahrain refers to Bahrain as 'Bahrain
and its dependencies'. ·
\Vhat was and what is now the official denomination of the State of Bahrain? What
was the meaning of the terrn 'dependencies'? What was the legal status of 'the
dependencies of Bahrain', in relation to Bahrain proper before 1971?"
1. International Agreements
Qatar has the following comment on Bahrain'sresponse to the first question.
In answer to the question whether there were any international agreements concluded by the
United Kingdom with third States in the name of or on behalf of Qatar and Bahrain before
1971, Bahrain has referred toits agreement of 22 February 1958 with Saudi Arabia • In this
regard it states that "On one occasion, the United Kingdom authorised the Bahrain
1QM, Annex IV.216, Vol. 11,p.235. -2-
Govemment to conclude a treaty directly with Saudi Arabia", and refers to an article byE.
Lauterpacht entitled "The Contemporàry Practice of the United Kingdom in the Field .of
International Law- Surveyand Commentary, VI'' 2•
In its comments, Bahrain has however failed to point out that the author spoke 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" 3•
2. "Bahrain 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 has shov.-nin 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 prior to 1971, in the context of the
conclusion of international agreements in its own right, was not to utilise what it now claims
to have beenthe official denomination of the territory at that time. Thus, Bahrain'sagreements
with Saudi Arabia of22 February 1958"'and with Iran of 17 June 1971 refer only to "the
Government of the Shaykhdom of Bahrain" and the Government 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
2
3 7I.C.L.Q.,(1958) 519.
Ibid.p. 518.
"'QM, AnnexIV.216, Vol. Il. p.235.
5 QM, AnnexIV.264, Vol. 12,p. Ill. -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 the Exc,ange of Notes of9 April 1968 between the
United Kingdom Government and UNICEF the Convention o, 7 September 1956 on the
Abolition of Slavert, 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 1•
Bahrain has, moreover, provided no evidence for its statement, at footnote 2 of its response,
that "The term 'andits Dependencies'was used by Britain throughout the Gulf to describe the
various continental and/or island appurtenances of GulfStates".
As for the meaning of the term "dependencies", Bahrain acknowledges that "there is no
established defmition of the term 'dependencies'as usedin 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 ofthe 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 conceming Bahrain, following the recognition of Qatar as a separate entity in
1868.
Bahrain notes that, in its Application, Qatar stated that unti1 1868 the peninsula was
considered a "dependency of Bahrain". However, Qatar has also demonstrated that any such
link was tenuous at best, and that Lorimer observed that the Sheikh of Bahrain's "suzerainty"
6
7Treatv Series No. 39/1958.
Trea;., Series No. 7111968.
8Treao/ Series No. 73/1957.
9Treaty Series No. 77/1968. The precise wording of this Exchange of Notes is significant. as it demonstrates that
the Government of Bahrain \Vas fully aware that reference was being made simply to Bahrain, and not to
"Bahrain and its Dependencies":
"l have the honour to propose that. in accordance \Viththe desire of the Government of Bahrain, the
follov•.ingagreements shall be regarded as extended to Bahrain, for the conduct of whose international
relations the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are
10 responsible".
Treaty Series No. 44/1962. ,i
-4-
.over Qatar by the middle of the·!9thcentury was more apparent than real 1• Lorimer further
observed that:
"In 1868 direct negotiations took place between the British Govemment 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 to an end' 11•
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
Ruler of Bahrain at the time, Bahrain fails to indicate thatthe 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
15
the affairs of the mainland ofKatar" •
Bahrain next refers to the Political Agent'sletter of 30 July 1933 which mentions the Ruler of
Bahrain having stated "that the Foreign Office knew thatthese islands are the dependencies of
16
Bahrain and that there is a ninety year old agreement somewhere to this effect" • In addition
to the fact that Bahrain appears to have been unable to fmd any relevant documents for the
period from 1874 to 1933conceming its alleged "dependencies",Qatar has already shown that
the reference to the so-called "agreement" is pure conjecture based on hearsay and that this
document had never been produced or ever seen by anyone 1• Furthennore, Bahrain does not
mention the fact that immediate!y following the Ruler'sletter of 30 July 1933, the British:
11
QM. Armex II.4, Vol. 3, p.109, at p.141.
12Ibid.
13 QM, Armex II.7,Vol. 4, p.9, atp. 54.
14Ibid., p61.
15
16Ibid., p. 63.
QM, Armex III.87,Vol. 6, p. 448.
17CR 2000/17. p. 29, para. 14 andCR 2000/18, pp. 17-18, paras. 6-8. -5-
declared that "HawarIsland is clearlynot one of the Bahrain group" (Telegram
18
dated 31 July 1933) ;
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
Umm 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 term Bahrain Islands" (Despatch dated 4
9
August 1933Y in:other words, there is no mention in this description of the
Hawar islands, inter alia,as being "dependencies" ofBahrain; and
considered that the prospecting licence granted by Bahrain concerned "'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
1933)= 0•
Bahrain fmally invokes the fact that in'1950, it was the United Kingdom'srole to issue visas
for travel to Qatar whereas there was no visa requirement for Bahrainis travelling to Zubarah.
Qatar'scomments of p July 2000, concerning Bahrain'suse 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 confirm what Qatar has already stated in its observations of 29 June
2000 on Judge Vereshchetin's second question concerning the meaning of the term
"dependencies" of Bahrain. Furthermore, contrary to what Bahrain states at page 4 of its
answer, the items that it has listed can hardly be said to establish or to reflect a practice, and
they even fail to mention sorne of the territories or features that Bahrain asserts were covered
by the term "dependencies" in the Exchange of Notes of 15 August 1971. Qatar can only
surmise that the United Kingdom Govem.mentmade reference, in Sir Geoffrey Arthur's letter
18QM, Annex III.88, Vol. 6, p. 451.
19
20QM, Annex III.90, Vol. 6, p. 459.
QM, 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 geographicaldistinction between the principal island
of Bahrain and the other islands in its immediate 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 devoidof any specifie official significance.
Insofar as Bahrain appears to be introducing additional 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
èontextof Qatar'sseparate respol1seto 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 of9 March 1939stated as follows:
"The limits of this order are Qatar and the coastand 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, andall territories, islands, and islets which
may be included in the territories and be the possessions of the ruling Sheikh of Qatar,
21
together with their territorial waters" •
21British czndForeign State Pczpers 1939, Vol. 143. His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1951, p. 19. -7-
While this Order in Council does not use the tenn "dependencies"in referring to the territories
• 22
to which it pertains, the same is true of the Bahrain Order in Council of 1913 , which is
couched in similar tenns. In other words, although Qatar has never used the tenn
"dependencies" to refer toits territories beyondthe limits of the peninsula stricto sensu, it was
clearly on the same footing as Bahrain as regarded possessions outside its main territory.
There is thus no basis for Bahrain'scontention that its "dependencies" include, inter alia, ali
the islands and low-tide elevations lying between its eastern coast and the western coast of
Qatar.
22 BSD, Annex 2, p.35. 13 July 2000
QATAR'S COMMENTS 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 asto the meaning of the expression "Dependendes ofBahrain". Qatar did not object
to the production of such documents. Since Bahrain used those documents during its second
round pleadings, whereas it was allowed to use them only in the context of its responses to
Judge Vereshchetin, the Court authorised Qatar to comment upon the contentions put forward
on 28 June 2000 by Bahrain on the basis ofthose documents, and to submit its comments by
13 July 2000 The comments that follow show that the documents that Bahrain requested
authorisation to produce in response to Judge Vereshchetin'squestions and which it used in its
oral pleadings provide no support for any of the arguments put forward in this regard, once
they have been put in their proper historical context.
2. The documents that have beenproduced byBahrain, ali dating from 1950, relate to an
arrangement that was entered into by Bahrain and Qatar through British mediation. For a
proper understanding of the meaning of these documents, they must be examined in the
context in which they arose.
3. It will be recalled that, following the 1937 incidents 2,relations between Qatar and
Bahrain had deteriorated significantly, with the imposition by each side of a kind of embargo
on the circulation of persons and goods In an •ttempt 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
1 Letter from the Registrar of the Court to Qatar, dated 28 June 2000.
2 QM, paras. 8.39-8.43.
3 Ibid.para. 8.44. 2
to exploit any oil that might be discovered there"'.Nevertheless, the Ruler of Bahrain
continued thereafter to claim that he should be acknowledged to have private rights at
Zubarah 5•
4. It is against this background of repeated claims bythe Ruler of Bahrain that the 1950
arrangement must be viewed. The sequence of events wasas follows:
On 3 September 1949, the Foreign Office took theview that Great Britain should try to
remove the Ruler ofBahrain's "sense of grievance" 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 it considered that the Ruler had private or
7
tribal rights at Zubarah •However, 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" Accordingly,•the
Foreign Office suggested that a solution should be sought whereby the Ruler of Qatar
would agree that certain members of the Al-Khalifah 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 ~ega to d
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 admissionof:
4
Ibid.,para. 8.46.
5 Ibid.paras. 8.47-8.49; QCM, para. 5.38(l)(ii)-(vi).
6 BM, Annex 194, Vol. 4, p. 838.
7 Ibid.
8
9 Ibid.
Ibid. 3
"sorne vagu rights which might be likened to the rights which Bedouin completely
unfamiliar with notions of territorial sovereignty and artificially drawn :frontiersclaim
10
in moving across desert frontiers" •
The main objective would be to find for the Ruler of Bahrain "sorne face-saving
deviee" which would make a settlement possible, white conserving "the reasonable
11
rights of the Sheikh of Qatar" •
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 simplywished to:
"send his dependents with their flocks for grazing to the Zubarah area without
supervision from anyone and without the imposition of Customs or other controls on
112
such people, aswas the custom in the past' •
The Political Agent added that he hoped that the Ruler of Qatar would "give the
13
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 of these 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 195, Vol. 4, p.840.
11Ibid.
12QM, Annex III.266, Vol. 8, pp. 320-321.
13Ibid., p321. ·
1
.;M, 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
15
5% to 2% ad valorem •
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
16
could go only if so authorised by the Ruler of Bahrain •
As will be shown in paragraph 9, below, even this arrangement was terminated bythe Ruler of
Qatar in 1953.
6. In his pleading of28 June 2000, Mr. Jan Paulsson made four contentions, based on the
five new documents 17:
(1) 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 turn.
15 fbld.,pp. .).))-.)0)
16 Ibid., p. 338.
17 CR ?QOO/?? -4 -6·. 1., .,.,
- --· 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 persons to visit Qatar, Kuwait or other Gulf States. In addition,
Mr. Paulsson inferred, from the same letter, that the Ruler'sdecrees were subject to the prior
approval of the British authorities. On this basis, he concluded that Bahrain was not a
18
sovereign State •
In fact, the document is ambiguous and does not prove much: first, with regard to visas,
generally speaking, the granting of visas falls within thejurisdiction ofthe State that is visited,
and not within that of the State from which the visitor 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 travel 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'sresponsibility for the conduct of the
foreign relations of Bahrain and Qatar, in accordance with the provisions of the treaties of 22
19 20 21
December 1880 , 13 March 1892 and 3 November 1916 • This did not mean that,
otherwise, Bahrain and Qatar were not sovereign States.
Moreover, it will be seen from the two letters annexed hereto that in 1959 the Ruler of Qatar
22
himself requested the Political Agent not to issue visas to certain persons , 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 Department of the Qatar Government" 2• This shows that at
least in Qatar, even if it was the British authorities who retained the right formally to deliver
visas, the issuance of visas was subject to the approval of the Qatari authorities.
18Ibid.,p. 55, paras. 14-15.
19
20QM, Annex II.36, Vol. 5, p. 117.
QM. Annex II.37, Vol. 5, p. 111.
21QM. Annex II.47, Vol. 5, p. 181.
22Letter fro ~ommandant of Police to Political Agent in Qatar, dated 2 August 1959.
23Letter from Political Agent in Qatar to Conuuandant of Police, dated 5 July 1960. \
6
As regards Bahrain's assertion that the decrees of the Ruler of Bahrain were subject to prier
approval by the British authorities, no basis for such an assertion is to be found in the letter of
18 March 1950. The particular proclamation in question concerned a matter of foreign
relations between Qatar and Bahrain, for which the British were responsible by virtuer
special treaty relations with Bahrain and, moreover, it was being issued pursuant to the
arrangements negotiated by the British for Bahraini visits to Zubar(see,paragraph 4,
above).
Consequently, the letterf 18 March 1950 provides no support for Bahrain's assertion that
Bahrain was not a sovereign State.
(2) Zubarah isallegedlvnota part ofQatar
8. Bahrain contends that in the dra:ft proclamation whereby Bahrain authorised its
subjects to go to Zubarah, the Ruler of Bahrain replaced the expression "the Zubarah area of
Qatar", which had been used in the dra:ft prepared by the Political Agent, by "Zubarah",
withoutmentioning_Qatar. Bahr.ains.e_ems_c_onçl_urgm thisJ thb_tubar ~ih~W~- ?_~JJ,Ot
considered to bepart of Qatar.
Regardless of the fact that such a conclusion would be in contradiction with the consistent
2
declarations by the British, since 1873, that Bahrain had no rights in or to Zu\athe
history of the events forming the background to the documents produced by Bahrain shows
that this conclusion in no way corresponds to the historical reality.
Furthermore, against the background detailed above, the fact that the wordsatar" were
crossed outof the original draft proclamation, prepared by the Political Agent, cannet in any
way imply recognition that Zubarah belonged toBahrain2• 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 certainncessions" in
24QM, paras. 8.16, et se8.24,et se8.42,et seetc.
25Imav be noted that there is no indication of who crossed out the words "of Qatar" in the draft proclamation, or
ofwhen they were crossed out.
26
QM, Annex III.269, Vol. 8, p. 339. 7
exchange for certain advantages that were granted by Bahrain, essent relaael o ycustoms -
the reduction in transit dues on goods destined for Qatar.
(3) The question of Zubarah allegedlv remains unsettled
9. Mr. Paulsson referred to a sentence in the letter from the Political Agent to Belgrave
dated 18 March 1950. According to Mr. Paulsson, the Political Agent wrote that he would be
writing to Belgrave again "about the concessions which His Highness Shaikh Salman
promised for Qatar in order to settle this affair'2•Mr. Paulsson seems to infer from this that
the question of Zubarah was not yet settled and that it remains unsettled todaf8•
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 order to settle this affair", as was asserted Mr. Paulsson,
but "as a result of the settlement of this affair" (emphasis added), thus clearly implying that
the affair had 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 travel easily to Bahrain; this did not imply that the question of Zubarah had not
already been dealt with. It is true that, subsequently, the Ruler of Qatar was to terminate the
29
1950 arrangement because of provocative and irresponsible behaviour by Bahrain in 1952
30
and in 1953 ,but the position as regards Zubarah was made perfectly clear in 1957. At that
tirne, the British stated to the Rulerf Bahrain that "HMG have never supported any claim by
Bahrain to 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 to be continued as they were
27CR 2000/22, p. 55, para. 16: "J'espère vous écrireséparémentau sujet des concessions que Son Altesse le
cheikh Salman a promis [sic] pour Qatar afin de réglercette affaire".
28Ibid.p. 55, para. see,also, p. 56, para. 22.
9
30QM, Annex III.272, Vol. 8, p. 3~1.
QM, Annex III.270, Vol. 8, p. 343. 8
31 32
before" • This point was mentioned by Qatar in the oral pleadings , 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 persons and their families to go to Zubarah
33
(and not to "return" to Zubarah, as Mr. Paulsson mistakenly stated ),that the reality on the
ground "seems rather to have been a Bahraini reality" 3•
35
On the contrary, Qatar has shown that Zubarah was uninhabited •The fact that in 1950 Qatar
authorised the Ruler of Bahrain to allow a maximum of 200 of his subjects to visit Zubarah
(the number being reduced to 50-60 in the Ru1er of Bahrain'sletter of 21 March 1950 3) does
not mean that the local "reality" actually became "Bahraini". These few visitors obviously in
no way changed the legal status of Zubarah, which remained under Qatari sovereignty. In any
event, the arrangements as to such visits were terminated a:fteronly 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 Aprill950, which noted that:
"... I have heard nothing about the Bahraini visitors to the Zubarah area except that
they landed there and were not particularly enthusiastic about being:there' 13•
31QM, Annex III.284, Vol. 8, p. 411.
32CR 2000/9, p. 17, para. 34 and p. 30, para. 16.
33
CR 2000/22, p. 56, para. 20: "... le Political Agent s'enquiert du nombre des gens qui vont retourner à
Zubarah" (emphasis added).
34CR 2000/22, p. 56, para. 22.
35CR 2000/9, p. 24, para. 52.
36It may be noted that in that letter the words "and its environs" have been inserted in the Arte~et\1ie,after
the word "Zubarah". There is no indication of who inserted these words,or when they were inserted. Also, in the
Ruler ofBahrain's letter of 4 February 1950, the word in Arabie that bas been translated as "area" in fact means
"courtyard", implying that the so-callèd "Zubarah area" was restricted to the immediate surroundings of the
ruined tO\'In. -
37
QM, Annex III.269, Vol. 8, p. 331, at p. 339; emphasis added. 9
The Political Agent added that:
"... itnow seems that few of the people who migrated from Zubarah and, whom the
Shaikh [of Bahrain] has always described as yearning to return there, now want togo
back. This somewhat comic situation Shaikh Salman is, not unnaturally, pot prepared
to admit" 3•
* * *
In conclusion, the five new documents provide absolutely no support for the arguments put
forward by Bahrain and provide no answer to the questions posed by Judge Vereshchetin.
38Ibid.,at pp. 337-338. Po:J,.ice HeaclCJ.uarters
OP/0.15 The Fort - Ru.muilah
DOHA
2nc1 Augunt, 1959•
. Oon.f'ideJ;l.tial
:::========::::~=::
. H8B.•M's PolitioaJ. Agent,
D o. ~.A4·:.
Sir, -
I have the honour to inform you that
.. am inatructed by His· Higlmeso Shn:Ud1 .A.hmadbin
AJ.i .Al Tho.ni to request thnt o.:pplications ~or
v-isas made by Represer.1tatives oi' the Firm TEF.A-
EXPORT Gï.M.D.H., Ost'":"strasse No 151~ ,usselélol"f,
be re.!'used.
I have the honour to be,
S:.i.r,
Your obedient servant,
;·..'.ï.,.::
...~:..
\'•;.·.
r: ·- .
Commaridarit o~ Police.
....
....... ÙFTI·E·AZA M·
,A.bdl ann;of Bhucan Sharif PQ!,ITIC"J, A~.
DOF-1/1.
July 5, ·19G0. ..·
~-Ro?t.
·;fth re!'erenc e. r.o om· t~lel)hon conver::m U nn ,yenterday
r enclose Elvisiting cm·d o1' s.,.hebzadél /·.bclulHannMl o:f
Bhutan Shari:f. ·
Abdul. Hann~m httn b.en trying f'or some tirne to r)tain
visas to corne l1ere i"'rorn Pnl;:ist·afor l1lmsel.f Nlcl for
twenty four ai' hj n :fol.lowern. They have 08 ic"t lutt they ")
wish ta visit the 1\:friùi comr.mn.i.ty in Doha. On irwtructions
:from the Im!:tigratir)n Dep;:Œt.ment visa::: h~:we :ln the pnst Q.ê.!.m..
r.e:fused· bath for hlm ::uul I'ol'hJ.s corn,I.•anions, but he ho.s
apyarently rnarwgccl· tl'entc~r QD.t~œ é\l"ni piJ.e;rlrnr.:)tw·ning
:from the Huj.
\"lhen Abdul H::mn:;m came t.o r.:.:-cme ycstcl'lb.Y, lte nought
my help in obtüinine; vJ.u~: for.;hin t•rtenty four compMtions
to join 1'lirnhere •. ·.!e:r.pl:ünetl that thls w:.s 11 mt,t~er t'or
the Im;nigi·l!:tion Depurt:nr;mt 0i' t.lte .).ntnrGov•.:l·runent <lll'thElt
they hacl turne<l do•.'tnl.hirsre·-:~. in.:fhcr;p;~t-~nt. He.:tl!en
osl<:ecl whether I wuul'l •.n·j.t.tl let ~.er rccom.:renL!in, ·hirn ta
Shaikh ;\hméiClno qwt. hn c•:•ult.rnctlŒ hir. r·~·.tt p<::•soGr:tl1y
to the Shaikh. I EH:dll t.h;t I.'Wé!S J1lt. prepurcd to do thiu
in the absence of EH"l r~cornmenc.1nt.ion :for him f'rorn t-.he
Pakj.stsn ElUthori ties. Abdul HE'Innan showcrl me n let teP
f'rom the p,ilitj cal !geney in B<•hrr,;in wi th a 1';:!5!3ci:•té'lnù
also a let ter he hr-b ~~den é: tCii by the (Jni ter.1 1\inF~ md.h r:!
Commissioner· in Karachi whiclt ~eC'erre nimpl.r tc• thcir
Cl':. previous cor·r·espondencP. with u~. nbrJttt thi.n mc:n1:111·hir;
.~~;: followers. As I \'1."1mr:1i.ll.ing to l1elp him 1\bdttl Tlonnan
.i...;.. sa id th at he would h.i.mse l.ff.ll'rongeto cet=:!i.llJkb i.hntB.•l
...'•
:? As I mentim1ecl on th!';t.elel'hone.,..Ithin t::t ~hefore
.. Shaikh Ahmed mé.lke fl~decision t:1bou.t thln m<lll nn•l hif:l followers
(_~ 1. he should k:now t.hf.lè the Pold>Jtncll Pol:iUc:··J. J\r.;ent f'0r the
~ rtB Khyber district has r>u.lclthst thd.ul Honn1m :is r-m untrustwoFthy
0 C) indi vidu8l. He has érlso c~_;• s.tlo~ olb te F.lu!;henticity o:f
rAM 0"-.Abd':ll Hannan' n q.redcnt i&t sign:rJ. by n num1Jer ?f. tr•lbnl
.Ual1ks :from the areo. 11e Polltlcnl A!,~en t ,tyoer ~tloo
cests doubt on ftbdul Irr.mnnn professed. motiver; f'or v1sitine
•.lasr wi th his compm1ions. He ::;~, tost thel"'f:must be
very t:ew Afridis reGident here 8Dd that t.hosc there would
hardly be edi:fied by the }.•rospec t of huving f~o house and
t:eed Abdul H<mnun tllld his peroonr:tl followerc r.1uring their
sta:,·o
( J.c:. Moberl~r)
R • Cochrane, Esq., MBE,
Commandant ot: P:::>lic;e,
DOHA.
R~:STRICTED
Qatar's comments on Bahrain's arguments presented on 28 June 2000 on the basis of the five new documents produced by Bahrain on 21 June 2000,together with Qatar's comments on those documents