The Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain case (1991–2001) at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stands as a landmark in international law, resolving the only territorial dispute between two Arab states adjudicated by the ICJ. This article examines the case’s importance in shaping maritime delimitation principles, clarifying the legal status of international agreements, and fostering regional stability in the Arabian Gulf. By analyzing the case’s jurisdictional, procedural, and substantive contributions, particularly its application of the equidistance method and customary international law, the study highlights its enduring impact on global jurisprudence and bilateral relations.

Introduction

The Qatar v. Bahrain case, adjudicated by the ICJ from 1991 to 2001, addressed sovereignty disputes over the Hawar Islands, Zubarah, and several shoals, alongside maritime boundary delimitation in the Arabian Gulf. Initiated by Qatar’s unilateral application, the case navigated complex jurisdictional challenges and culminated in a 2001 judgment that balanced historical claims with modern legal principles. This article explores the case’s significance in international law, focusing on its contributions to maritime delimitation, treaty interpretation, and regional diplomacy, while situating it within the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Historical and Geopolitical Context

The dispute’s origins trace to the 18th century, when the Al Khalifa tribe, now Bahrain’s ruling family, controlled parts of Zubarah and the Hawar Islands. Over time, Ottoman, British, and regional influences shaped competing claims. The discovery of oil in 1932 by the Bahrain Petroleum Company escalated tensions, as did Qatar’s 1936 complaint over territorial ownership. British decisions in 1939 favored Bahrain’s sovereignty over the Hawar Islands, but Qatar contested these rulings, citing proximity and historical ties.

Post-independence in 1971, both states sought to resolve their disputes through mediation, notably Saudi Arabia’s efforts in 1983 and 1987. These culminated in the 1987 exchange of letters and the 1990 Doha Minutes, which formed the legal basis for Qatar’s ICJ application. The case’s resolution was critical for regional stability, given the Gulf’s strategic importance and ongoing territorial disputes.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Significance

Establishing Jurisdiction

A central issue was whether the 1987 letters and 1990 Doha Minutes constituted binding international agreements conferring ICJ jurisdiction. Qatar argued that these documents, including the Bahraini formula accepted in 1990, obligated both parties to submit “the whole of the dispute” to the ICJ. Bahrain contested this, asserting that the Minutes were a non-binding political understanding and that unilateral submission required mutual consent.

In its 1994 and 1995 judgments, the ICJ ruled that the documents were legally binding under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as they expressed clear commitments using terms like “shall.” The Court’s interpretation of the Arabic term “al-tarafan” (the parties) as allowing unilateral submission was pivotal, affirming that either party could approach the ICJ independently. This clarified the legal weight of diplomatic minutes and letters, reinforcing that treaties need not follow a single form to be binding.

Procedural Innovations

The case’s procedural history, spanning a decade, included two jurisdictional judgments (1994, 1995) and a merits judgment (2001). A notable challenge arose when Bahrain questioned the authenticity of 82 Qatari documents. The ICJ’s 1999 decision to disregard these documents, at Qatar’s request, ensured procedural fairness without derailing the case. This demonstrated the Court’s ability to manage complex evidentiary disputes, maintaining focus on the merits.

The ICJ also navigated Bahrain’s insistence on a special agreement, ruling that the existing agreements sufficed for jurisdiction. This precedent expanded the scope of “framework agreements” as valid bases for ICJ jurisdiction, distinct from formal compromis.

Substantive Contributions to International Law

Maritime Delimitation

The Qatar v. Bahrain case was the first ICJ case to apply the equidistance method for maritime delimitation between adjacent coasts, marking a significant advancement in maritime law. The Court drew a single maritime boundary in two sectors: a southern sector for territorial seas and a northern sector for continental shelves and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs).

In the southern sector, the ICJ applied customary international law, as neither state was party to the 1958 UNCLOS, and Qatar had not ratified UNCLOS 1982. The Court provisionally drew an equidistance line, adjusting it for special circumstances, such as the low-tide elevation of Fasht al Jarim, which was deemed inequitable for boundary determination. Notably, despite awarding Bahrain sovereignty over most Hawar Islands, the ICJ designated the waters between them and other Bahraini islands as territorial seas, granting vessels the right of innocent passage—a rare application of customary law.

In the northern sector, the Court rejected Bahrain’s claim that historical pearling banks justified adjusting the equidistance line, emphasizing equitable principles over historical activities. The ruling underscored the primacy of geographical factors in maritime delimitation, setting a precedent for subsequent cases like Cameroon v. Nigeria.

Territorial Sovereignty

The ICJ’s territorial rulings balanced historical evidence and legal principles. Qatar was awarded sovereignty over Zubarah based on the 1913 Anglo-Ottoman Convention and its consolidated authority post-1868. Janan Island, including Hadd Janan, was granted to Qatar, as the British 1939 decision excluded it from the Hawar group, clarified by 1947 letters. Bahrain received sovereignty over the Hawar Islands (except Janan) and Qit’at Jaradah, based on British decisions and Bahraini activities.

The Court’s treatment of low-tide elevations, like Fasht ad Dibal (awarded to Qatar), clarified that such features lack territorial status unless within a state’s territorial sea. This ruling refined the legal distinction between islands and low-tide elevations, influencing cases like Nicaragua v. Colombia.

Impact on Regional Stability and SDGs

The case’s resolution fostered peace between Qatar and Bahrain, aligning with SDG 16 by promoting just and inclusive institutions. By settling a decades-long dispute, the ICJ decision reduced the risk of escalation in a geopolitically sensitive region, particularly after incidents like the 1986 Fasht Dibal confrontation. The ruling’s acceptance by both states demonstrated the efficacy of international adjudication over traditional mediation, which had failed in 1985.

Economically, the clarified boundaries facilitated resource development, supporting SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). The case also highlighted the importance of equitable maritime resource allocation, indirectly advancing SDG 14 (Life Below Water) by establishing clear jurisdictional zones.

Broader Implications for International Law

The Qatar v. Bahrain case enriched ICJ jurisprudence in several ways:

• Treaty Interpretation: It affirmed that diplomatic minutes and letters can constitute binding treaties, emphasizing textual clarity over subjective intent.
• Jurisdictional Flexibility: The ruling on unilateral submission expanded access to the ICJ, encouraging states to resolve disputes judicially.
• Maritime Law: The equidistance method’s application and the treatment of territorial seas set benchmarks for equitable delimitation.
• Procedural Robustness: The handling of evidentiary disputes underscored the ICJ’s adaptability in complex cases.

Globally, the case serves as a cautionary tale for states drafting international agreements, highlighting the binding nature of clear commitments. It also demonstrated the ICJ’s role in resolving disputes involving non-Western states, enhancing its legitimacy in the Global South.

Limitations and Criticisms

Critics, including Judge Oda, argued that the ICJ’s interpretation of “al-tarafan” overlooked Bahrain’s intent for joint submission, potentially undermining state consent. The reliance on British colonial decisions, such as the 1939 ruling, raised questions about the validity of colonial-era determinations in modern contexts. Additionally, the case’s focus on historical claims over indigenous perspectives limited its engagement with post-colonial legal frameworks.

Conclusion

The Qatar v. Bahrain case is a cornerstone of international law, advancing maritime delimitation, treaty interpretation, and regional stability. Its application of the equidistance method and customary law set enduring precedents, while its jurisdictional rulings expanded the ICJ’s accessibility. By resolving a complex dispute, the case strengthened bilateral relations and supported SDG 16, demonstrating the power of judicial mechanisms in fostering peace. Future disputes can draw on its lessons to prioritize clear agreements and equitable solutions, ensuring the ICJ remains a vital arbiter of global justice.

References

• Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, ICJ Reports 1994, 1995, 2001.
• Qatar v. Bahrain, Wikipedia.
• Mendelson, M. (2001). The Curious Case of Qatar v. Bahrain. British Yearbook of International Law, 72(1).
• Manusama, K. (2016). Classic Cases: Qatar v. Bahrain (1994). International Law 1000.
• World Court Digest, Max Planck Institute.
• Durham University Publications, The Qatar v. Bahrain Maritime Delimitation Case.