Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

A dispute between Qatar and Bahrain concerns the sovereignty over (1) Hawar Islands, (2) the shoals of

Dibal and Qit’at Jaradah and (3) the delimitation of the maritime areas of each state. Both parties tried to
resolve this issue for 20 years and during this time, there were exchange of letters acknowledged by both
heads of state. The King of Saudi Arabia sought to settle the dispute through mediation and presented 5
consequences:

First: "All issues of dispute between the two countries, relating to sovereignty over the islands, maritime
boundaries and territorial waters, are to be considered as complementary, indivisible issues, to be solved
comprehensively together."

Second and third was aimed for the maintenance of the status quo and cordial atmosphere between the
parties. Third principle also provided that the Parties undertook "not to present the dispute to any
international organization".

Fourth principle, a Tripartite Committee was formed to reach substantive solutions.

Fifth principle: if negotiations provided in the fourth principle fails to reach an agreement, both parties
shall consult with the Government of Saudi Arabia, to determine other means to resolve the matters on
the basis of the provisions under international law.

The committee held several meetings but failed to agree on the terms for submitting the dispute to the
court. The “minutes” for each meeting were recorded and there it was stipulated that both parties may be
able to submit the dispute to the ICJ after giving the King of Saudi Arabia 6 months to find solutions or
settlement to the dispute between them. However, the jurisdiction was contested by Bahrain when Qatar
finally filed a claim in the ICJ.

International agreements which create rights and obligations for both parties can be constituted by the
signatories to the minutes of the meeting and even letters that are exchanged. Bahrain’s contention was
that the minutes of the meeting were just records of the negotiations and could not be used as the basis
to give ICJ jurisdiction over the case. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, there is no
single form in international agreements. The minutes during the meeting of the parties contained the
affirmation to the previous agreements and to give the King of SA the chance to settle the dispute. There
were commitments in the minutes of the meeting that both parties agreed and therefore rights and
obligations (international agreement) were created under international law.

Bahrain’s prime minister argued that there was no agreement since there was no intention on his part. It
is also noteworthy that even if Qatar did not immediately apply to the UN Secretary does not mean that
they never considered the minutes of the meeting as an international agreement. Either way, even if the
registration or non-registration still has no effect on the validity of the agreement between them.

Article 2, paragraph (1) (LI), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969
provides that for the purposes of that Convention, " 'treaty' means an international agreement
concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in
a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation".

Вам также может понравиться