The Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates submit to the International Court of Justice a joint Application constituting an appeal against a decision rendered by t

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website: www.icj-cij.org Twitter Account: @CIJ_ICJ YouTube Channel: CIJ ICJ
LinkedIn page: International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2018/33
5 July 2018
The Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates
submit to the International Court of Justice a joint Application constituting
an appeal against a decision rendered by the ICAO Council
THE HAGUE, 5 July 2018. The Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt and the
United Arab Emirates yesterday submitted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, a joint Application constituting an appeal against the decision
rendered by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (the “ICAO Council”) on
29 June 2018, in proceedings initiated by the State of Qatar against these three States on
30 October 2017, pursuant to Article II, Section 2, of the International Air Services Transit
Agreement (the “IASTA”).
On the same day, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates submitted to the Court another joint Application
constituting an appeal against the decision rendered by the ICAO Council in proceedings initiated
by Qatar against these four States on 30 October 2017, pursuant to Article 84 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (the “Chicago Convention”) (see Press Release No. 2018/32).
The Application submitted by Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates asserts that,
in 2013 and 2014, following years of diplomatic activities, the Member States of the Gulf
Cooperation Council adopted a series of instruments and undertakings referred to collectively as
the Riyadh Agreements, under which Qatar “committed to cease supporting, financing or
harbouring persons or groups presenting a danger to national security, in particular terrorist
groups”. It is further stated in the Application that, on 5 June 2017, after Qatar allegedly failed to
abide by its commitments, the above-mentioned States adopted a range of counter-measures “with
the aim of inducing compliance by Qatar”. These measures included airspace restrictions to aircraft
registered in Qatar. On 30 October 2017 Qatar submitted to ICAO, pursuant to Article II, Section 2,
of the International Air Services Transit Agreement (IASTA), an Application against the above
States (“Application (B)”) which “alleged various violations of the IASTA as the result of [the
said] airspace restrictions”.
Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates further point out that, on 19 March 2018, they
raised two preliminary objections to Qatar’s Application (B), contending that the ICAO Council
lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims submitted by Qatar, or, in the alternative, that the claims
were inadmissible. In their first preliminary objection, they argued that the dispute would require
the ICAO Council “to determine issues that f[e]ll outside its jurisdiction[, since] to rule on the
lawfulness of the countermeasures adopted by the Applicants, including certain airspace
restrictions, the Council would be required to rule on Qatar’s compliance with critical obligations
under international law entirely unrelated to . . . the IASTA”. In their second preliminary objection,
- 2 -
they contended inter alia that “Qatar had not complied with the necessary precondition to the
existence of jurisdiction of the Council, contained in Article II, Section 2, of the IASTA, and by
reference Article 84 of the Chicago Convention, of first attempting to resolve the disagreement . . .
through negotiations prior to submitting its claims to the Council”.
The ICAO Council rendered its decision on 29 June 2018, rejecting these preliminary
objections.
The Applicants contend that the decision was issued “immediately following the close of
oral submissions, and without asking any questions or undertaking any deliberations”. In their
view, despite their oral intervention “to clarify that there were in fact two separate preliminary
objections”, the ICAO Council decision “refer[red] to a singular ‘preliminary objection’ only” and
“did not state any reasons for the rejection of the preliminary objections”.
The Applicants advance three grounds of appeal. Under the first ground of appeal, they
contest the decision of the ICAO Council as “manifestly flawed and in violation of fundamental
principles of due process and the right to be heard”. Under the second and third grounds of appeal,
they claim that “the ICAO Council erred in fact and in law” in rejecting, respectively, the first and
the second preliminary objections to its jurisdiction over Qatar’s application.
Consequently, Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates request the Court to adjudge
and declare:
“(1) [t]hat the Decision of the ICAO Council dated 29 June 2018 reflects a manifest
failure to act judicially on the part of the ICAO Council, and a manifest lack of
due process in the procedure adopted by the ICAO Council; and
(2) [t]hat the ICAO Council is not competent to adjudicate upon the disagreement
between the State of Qatar and the Applicants submitted by Qatar to the ICAO
Council by Qatar’s Application (B) dated 30 October 2017; and
(3) [t]hat the Decision of the ICAO Council dated 29 June 2018 in respect of
Application (B) is null and void and without effect.”
As basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal, the Applicants invoke Article II,
Section 2, of the IASTA, and by reference Article 84 of the Chicago Convention, read in
conjunction with Articles 36 (1) and 37 of the Statute of the Court.
___________
The full text of the joint Application of 4 July 2018 will be available shortly on the Court’s
website.
___________
Note: The Court’s press releases are prepared by its Registry for information purposes only
and do not constitute official documents.
___________
- 3 -
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
It was established by the United Nations Charter in June 1945 and began its activities in
April 1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six
principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York. The Court has a
twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by
States (its judgments have binding force and are without appeal for the parties concerned); and,
second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized
United Nations organs and agencies of the system. The Court is composed of 15 judges elected for
a nine-year term by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations.
Independent of the United Nations Secretariat, it is assisted by a Registry, its own international
secretariat, whose activities are both judicial and diplomatic, as well as administrative. The official
languages of the Court are French and English. Also known as the “World Court”, it is the only
court of a universal character with general jurisdiction.
The ICJ, a court open only to States for contentious proceedings, and to certain organs and
institutions of the United Nations system for advisory proceedings, should not be confused with the
other  mostly criminal  judicial institutions based in The Hague and adjacent areas, such as the
International Criminal Court (ICC, the only permanent international criminal court, which was
established by treaty and does not belong to the United Nations system), the Special Tribunal for
Lebanon (STL, an international judicial body with an independent legal personality, established by
the United Nations Security Council upon the request of the Lebanese Government and composed
of Lebanese and international judges), the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT,
mandated to take over residual functions from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia and from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda), the Kosovo Specialist
Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (an ad hoc judicial institution which has its seat in
The Hague), or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA, an independent institution which assists
in the establishment of arbitral tribunals and facilitates their work, in accordance with the Hague
Convention of 1899).
___________
Information Department:
Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
Ms Joanne Moore, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Mr. Avo Sevag Garabet, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
Ms Genoveva Madurga, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)