## Facts

- Qatar and Bahrain, neighboring Gulf States, disputed sovereignty over several land and maritime features and the delimitation of their maritime zones.
- The dispute concerned sovereignty over the Hawar Islands, Zubarah, Janan Island, Qit’at Jaradah, and the status of Fasht ad Dibal (a low-tide elevation).
- Qatar instituted proceedings in 1991, relying on Saudi-mediated instruments from 1987 and the 1990 Doha Minutes to establish jurisdiction over the “whole of the dispute.”
- Bahrain objected to jurisdiction and admissibility, arguing the instruments did not constitute binding consent and that Qatar could not unilaterally submit the entire dispute.
- In 1994, the Court held the 1987 exchanges and 1990 Minutes were binding international agreements and committed the parties to submit the whole dispute to the Court.
- On the merits, the Court was required both to determine territorial sovereignty and to draw a single maritime boundary covering territorial seas, continental shelf, and EEZ.
- Neither State was party to the 1958 Law of the Sea Conventions; at the relevant time only Bahrain was party to UNCLOS, so the Court applied customary international law for delimitation.

## Issues

1. Which State had sovereignty over Zubarah, the Hawar Islands, Janan Island, and Qit’at Jaradah, and what was the legal status of Fasht ad Dibal for purposes of territorial and boundary determinations?
2. What method and legal rules governed drawing a single maritime boundary between Qatar and Bahrain for territorial seas, continental shelf, and EEZ?
3. What weight should be given to historical title, effectivités, and a prior third-party determination (the 1939 British decision) in allocating sovereignty and shaping the boundary?

## Decision

- The Court awarded sovereignty over Zubarah to Qatar.
- The Court awarded sovereignty over the Hawar Islands to Bahrain, treating the 1939 British decision as binding due to the parties’ consent to that settlement process.
- The Court awarded sovereignty over Janan Island to Qatar.
- The Court awarded sovereignty over Qit’at Jaradah to Bahrain.
- The Court found Fasht ad Dibal, as a low-tide elevation, to fall under Qatar’s sovereignty and treated it accordingly in delimitation.
- The Court drew a single maritime boundary using a provisional equidistance line, adjusted for relevant circumstances to achieve an equitable result, including reduced effect for certain small or seaward-lying islands and features.

## Legal Principles

- Minutes of meetings and exchanges of letters can constitute binding international agreements when they record commitments creating rights and obligations, not merely negotiations.
- Territorial sovereignty analysis distinguishes title from mode of acquisition; an established original title prevails unless displaced by clear evidence of transfer or conduct incompatible with the continued existence of that title.
- Effectivités may confirm or clarify title but cannot, without strong proof, override a superior original title grounded in historical consolidation and recognition.
- A third-party decision made pursuant to the parties’ consent and mandate to settle a dispute may be binding on the parties even if it is not a judgment of an international tribunal and lacks extensive reasoning.
- Maritime delimitation for territorial sea, continental shelf, and EEZ may proceed under customary international law using a two-step approach: a provisional equidistance line followed by adjustment for relevant circumstances to reach an equitable result.
- Small islands and minor features may receive reduced effect in delimitation where necessary to avoid disproportionate results, coastal cut-off, or excessive distortion of maritime entitlements.

## Conclusion

The Court resolved a combined territorial and maritime dispute by allocating sovereignty over key features between Qatar and Bahrain and establishing a single maritime boundary based on equidistance adjusted for relevant circumstances, while affirming that consent-based instruments can create binding jurisdictional commitments and that superior title is not displaced by sporadic effectivités.


Maritime Delimitation & Territorial Questions (Qatar v. Bahrain), 2001 I.C.J. 40 (Mar. 16)