Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain - Essay Example

? Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain The dispute between Bahrain and Qatar can be traced back to early 1700s when the confederation of Utob tribes, which contained Al-Khalife, Al-Sabah, and Al-Jalahma, migrated to Qarin which lies on the northern coast of the Gulf in order to save themselves from the heat of the Arabian desert. As Kwiatkowska notes, though the confederation attacked Bahrain in 1700, they failed to capture the same. Soon, differences in opinion arose among the tribes, and in 1766, Al-Khalife tribe moved to Zubara village which lies on the northwestern coast of Qatar (34). Admittedly, Bahrain was the wealthiest place in Gulf because of the rich trade of pearl. Thus, it was common for tribes to target Bahrain as the primary target. Thus, in 1783, the Al-Khalifa family again attacked Bahrain with the help of its tribal allies. This time they managed to effectively invade Bahrain. However, there were so many attacks in the pipeline and the area seldom remained peaceful. In 1799, the Sultan of Muscat took control over the place and after three years, the place came under Wahhabi control. In 1811, Al-Khalifa tribe managed to come back and regain its control over Bahrain. Problems started erupting in 1867 when the representative of Al-Khalife in Qatar caught a man from an important Wakra tribe and sent back to Bahrain. Getting infuriated over the action, Wakra and Doha tribes turned against Al-Khalifa. Though the person was released, another member of the leading Qatari tribe was invited to Bahrain and jailed. Also, the Al-Khalifa joined hands with Sheikhs of Abu-Dhabi and invaded Doha and Wakra. As there was widespread destruction, Britain intervened in the issue and the problem was suppressed (United Nations Staff, 45). In order to end the conflict within the Al-Khalifa family, Isa bin Ali Al-Khalifa from Zubara was brought by UK and made the ruler of Bahrain. Over these years, the Al-Thani family had a growing influence over Qatar and Abdulla who ruled the province between 1913 and 1949 managed to sign a treaty of protection with the British as Bahrain had done. As Charney et al describe, in the year 1925, Al-Khalifa gave concessions for oil exploration but it mentioned nothing about the Hawar islands. Ten years later, the Sheikh of Qatar gave concession for oil exploration in places including Hawar. It was opposed by Bahrain and Britain declared that Hawar legally belonged to Bahrain (3225). In the year 1936, Britain made the official declaration that the area belonged to Bahrain. Though there was strong opposition from Qatar, Britain did not deviate from its decision. In the year 1947, Britain produced a map marking the boundaries between Bahrain and Qatar, and according to the map, Hawar belonged to Bahrain. Thus, by mid 1960s, Bahrain gave permission to an American oil company to explore oil in Hawar. However, the strong protest from Qatar brought the program to a halt. Though a meeting was held between the Sheikh of Qatar and Bahrain in 1967, they could not reach a solution. In the year 1937, Qatar attempted to impose tax on the Naim tribe residing in the Zubarah region. It was strongly opposed by Bahrain which claimed sovereignty over the region. While Bahrain claimed that Qatar illegally tortured the Bahraini people, Qatar claimed that it was using its authority within its own territory to curb unlawful activities. This only worsened the situation (United Nations, 119). Things turned worse when the Shell Company identified the presence of world’s largest oil reserve in Qatari Gas Field. Soon, there came the claim that Hawar would also have important gas reserves. Ten years later, in 1982, Bahrain started military exercises in Fasht Al-Deable, the disputed area near Hawar. In the year 1986, Bahrain started work in Fasht Al-Deable amidst strong protest from Qatar. Qatar responded by attacking the place and arresting the Bahrain workers. Saudi Arabia intervened in the dispute and an agreement was reached not to change the physical structure of the place until a solution is reached. However, the problem again came up when two Jordanian people were arrested by Bahrain in the very next year for allegedly spying for Qatar. Lagoni and Vignes describe that the matter was brought before GCC meeting by Qatar in the year 1990. The matter was sent by the GCC to Saudi Arabia for arbitration. It was decided that if the arbitration failed, the matter would be raised before the International Court (96). In the very next year, Qatar moved to the International Court claiming that the 1990 summit had allowed raising the matter in the International Court. Following this, Qatar also issued a decree for its all borders including Hawar. In the year 1996, the Amir of Qatar faced an unsuccessful coup attempt. It was alleged that Bahrain had a role in the attempt. The 1996 summit of GCC was boycotted by Bahrain, and it arrested two people from Qatar for spying. However, the opposition parties in Bahrain came out demanding the Bahrain government to respect the agreements of 1986 and 1990 and not to change the physical features of the place until the problem is solved. Thus, there was the case for hearing before the International Court on 7th February 1994. In fact, the parties were not there to resolve the dispute, but the matter of dispute was whether the International Court had jurisdiction over the matter. Though Qatar had requested the court to intervene, Bahrain claimed that the action of Qatar in approaching the court was contrary to the spirit of the 1990 Doha agreement. The Qatar side argued that the Court had the power to take u the case and it stressed on the lingual examination of the Doha record. On the other hand, Bahrain focused on a critical analysis of the Doha accord. On 15th February 1995, the court reached the finding that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between Qatar and Bahrain which had been submitted to it. Thus the court declared that the application from the State of Qatar as formulated on 30th November 1994 was admissible. However, on 15 February 1995, Mr. Valticos decided to resign his duty as judge ad hoc. Through an order dated 28 April 1995, the International Court set 29 February 1996 as the time limit to file each of the parties of a memorial on the merits. Later on, upon the request from Bahrain, the court decided to extend the date to 30 September 1996. After that the court set 30 October 1996 as the time limit for each of the parties to file a counter memorial on the merits. On 17 February 1997, the Agent of Bahrain informed the court through a letter that the Bahrain government had chosen Mr. Mohammed Shahabuddeen as the judge ad hoc. Again, by a letter dated 20 October 1997, the agent informed the court that Mr. Yves Fortier had been selected as the new judge ad hoc. Soon, there was another twist as it was alleged by Bahrain through a letter dated 17 February 1997 that it challenged the authenticity of 81 documents submitted by Qatar copies of which had been produced by Qatar as annexes to its memorial. It was informed that Bahrain would disregard these documents when it would prepare its counter memorial (Dotinga and Kwiatkowska, 29). However, by a letter dated 8 October 1997, Qatar replied that the allegations made by Bahrain regarding the authenticity of the documents could be considered as linked to the merits and that Qatar could not comment on the detailed allegations from Bahrain at that point of time as it was busy preparing its own counter memorial. However, Bahrain responded with a statement that the unauthentic documents from Qatar gave birth to procedural difficulties which seriously affected the normal development of the case. Soon, there was allegation from Bahrain that there were serious issues regarding the origin of the seals which were impressed on some of the documents produced by Qatar. As things went wrong, the President of the Court held a meeting with the representatives of both the parties on 25 November 1997. In the meeting, the parties reached the agreement that both the parties would submit their counter memorials without covering the issue of the authenticity of the documents challenged by Bahrain and that other pleadings would be taken up on a later date. Based on the agreement, both the parties submitted their counter memorials on 23 December 1997. Following this, the agent of Bahrain alleged that Qatar had totally relied on its own disputed documents in its counter memorial and hence Bahrain claimed that the court should decide on the question of the authenticity of the documents as a preliminary issue. Following this, through a letter dated 26 March 1998, Bahrain challenged the authenticity of one more Qatar document which was annexed to the counter memorial of Qatar. Thus, the court set a meeting of the parties with the President of the court and based on the interest expressed by the parties, set 30 September 1998 as the time limit for Qatar to fie an interim report regarding the allegations made by Bahrain about the authenticity of its 82 documents. Also, both the parties were directed to file a Reply on the merits of each party. While Bahrain was supposed to file the Reply based on the observations on the interim report of Qatar, the latter was supposed to detail its definitive position on the issue. The final date for the submission of these replies was 30 March 1999. Qatar duly submitted its interim report and in the report, it agreed to disregard its 82 disputed documents in the present case in order to enable the court to address the merits of the case without further procedural complications. Following this, on 11 December 1998, Qatar expressed its regret at the difficult situation it had created for both the Court and Bahrain. Also, it requested an extension to 30 May 1999 to file the Parties’ Replies. Bahrain acknowledged the letter and appreciated the expression of regret. Also, it declared that it had no objection in accommodating Qatar’s request for extension. Thereafter, there was a meeting by the President of the Court on 28 June 1999. Based on the meeting, it was decided by the court that there would be no further written pleadings. However, the parties could file supplemental documents which could be accompanied by a commentary of one page per document. Also, it was stipulated that the documents should be related to the context of the written pleadings. Thus, as Merrills notes, a meeting was held by the President of the court with the representatives of the parties on 16 November 1999. In the meeting, the parties agreed to start the hearings on the merits on 29 May 2000 (157). Finally, public hearings were held from 29 May to 29 June 2000, and the court heard the oral pleadings of both the parties. According to its application dated 8 July 1991, the requests of Qatar involved adjudging that Qatar had sovereignty over Hawar islands and that Qatar had sovereign rights over Dibal and Qit’at Jardah Shoals. In its application dated 30 November 1994, Qatar requested the court to declare that Bahrain had no territorial rights over the Hawar Islands, Island of Janan, Fasht ad Dibal, and Qit’at Jaradah, the archipelagic baselines, Zubarah, and the areas for fishing for pearls and for fishing, for swimming fish and any other matters connected with maritime boundaries. On the other hand, Bahrain requested the court to declare that Bahrain had sovereign power over Zubarah, Hawar Islands, Janan, and Hadd Janan. Also, it sought sovereignty over Fasht ad Dibal and Qit’at Jaradah which contains the Bahrainin archipelago, the maritime boundary between Bahrain and Qatar. Thus, the first issue before the court was Zubarah. While Bahrain claimed that Al-Khalifa Sheikhs resided in Bahrain in summers and Zubarah in winters. Though later the Al-Khalifa established the court and other institutions in the main island of Bahrain, there was a governor to rule the province of Zubarah. Then, Zubarah started a decline as development stopped. It was the attack by Al-Thani in the year 1878 followed by the military intervention of the British that caused the total destruction of the place. However, through a tribal confederation led by the Naim, the area still remained under the rule of the Sheikh of Bahrain. On the other hand, Qatar claimed that there was a town in the area of Zubarah even before the Al-Utab tribe reached Zubarah. When the tribes reached there, the local Sheikhs had laid down a condition for their settlement. The condition was payment of usual taxes in exchange for the right to trade in the area. However, the Al-Utab refused to pay the taxes and built and fort known as Murair near Zubarah. Later on, the Al-Mutab left Murair in 1783 to settle in Bahrain. Qatar claimed that the place was destroyed when Sheikh Jassim bin Thani of Qatar took steps to punish pirates and to stop attacks on the tribes by outsiders in the year 1878. Qatar denied the claim by Bahrain that Bin Khalifa continued to rule Zubarah in the nineteenth century through Naim tribe. Approving the claim made by Qatar, the court held that Qatar had sovereignty over Zubarah. Similarly, regarding Hawar Islands, Qatar claimed its sovereignty on the same because of the priority to be accorded to its original title as well as the principle of proximity and territorial unity. It was claimed that the islands were closer and more connected to Qatar than to the main island of Bahrain. However, Bahrain countered this claim by citing the Island of Palmas case which proved the irrelevance of geographical proximity in international law. Also, Bahrain claimed that it had uninterrupted and continuous sovereignty over Hawar islands over the last two centuries and the same is acknowledged by the inhabitants of the place. In fact, Hawar Islands issue presented a number of hurdles including the validity of the 1939 decision by Britain, the existence of an original title and so on. After lengthy analysis, the court reached the conclusion that the British decision of 11 July 1939 was binding on both the parties, and hence, it was held that Bahrain had sovereignty over Hawar Islands. Regarding Jonan Island, the court found that both the parties have different views on the composition of the Hawar group of islands. The court reached the decision that Qatar had sovereignty over Janan Island inclding Hadd Janan as per the decision taken by the British in 1939. Regarding maritime delimitation, the court observed that both the parties are asking for a single maritime boundary. Regarding Bahrain claim that the outermost islands and low-tide elevations should lie within territorial waters, the court observed that such conditions can be met only when there is a fringe of islands along the coat in immediate vicinity or when the coastline is deeply indented and cut into. Thus, the court declared that the new boundary will follow a north easterly direction from the maritime limits of Saudi Arabia on the one hand and Qatar and Bahrain on the other, which will then immediately move in an easterly direction after which it will pass between Jazirat Hawar and Janan and turn north to leave low tide elevatins of Fasht Bu Thur, and Fasht al Azam on Bahrain side and the low tide elevations of Qita’el Erge and Qit’at ash Shajarah on the Qatari side, and finally Qit’at Jaradah on the Bahrain side and Fasht ad Dibal on the Qatari side. Thus, the International Court of Justice played a very effective role in settling the long and complicated territorial dispute and maritime delimitation between Bahrain and Qatar. Admittedly, the issue took a very long time and a lot of effort to reach the conclusion. However, an analysis of the procedures proves that the Court was highly effective as an International Court in handling such a very complex issue. Works Cited Charney, Jonathan I et al (Eds.). International Maritime Boundaries. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005. Dotinga, Harm and Kwiatkowska, Barbara. International organizations and the law of the sea: documentary yearbook 1999. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002. Kwiatkowska, Barbara. The Qatar v. Bahrain Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Case (Maritime Briefing, Volume 3). International Boundaries Research Unit, 2003. Lagoni, Rainer and Vignes, Daniel. Maritime Delimitation. Netherlands: BRILL, 2006. Merrills, J. G. International Dispute Settlement. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2005. United Nations Staff. Case concerning maritime delimitation and territorial questions between Qatar and Bahrain: Merits Judgment of 16 March 2001. United Nations Publications, 2004. United Nations. Digest of International Cases on the Law of the Sea. Part 572. United Nations Publications, 2007. Read More