Qatar v. Bahrain - Cour international de Justice
Qatar v. Bahrain - Cour international de Justice Qatar v. Bahrain - Cour international de Justice
the search for an equitable re~ult"~' and that it is necessary to take into consideration "the 'relevant circumstances' which customary international law requires to be taken into account in al1 maritime del imitation^"^'. 8-16 The concurrence of the Parties' positions as to the .law applicable to the maritime delimitation in the northern sector is, however, not as complete as, prima facie, one might think. Indeed, in its discussion of this point, the Bahrain Mernorial displays certain deficiencies to which Qatar must draw attention. Thus, whereas Qatar lays considerable emphasis upon the three universally acknowledged components of the "fundamental nom" concerning maritime delimitation - equitable principles, relevant circumstances and an equitable re~ult~~ - and attributes equd value to them, Bahrain more or less disregards the first component, ive. equitable principles, to which it refers only once, and then indirectly". This reserve, which is quite unusual in cases of this kind, betrays a certain unease or hesitancy as regards the basis of Bahrain's position. In fact, Bahrain is effectively ignoring certain significant considerations of equity. For exarnple, Bahrain ignores even the most undisputed equitable principle with respect to which, as Professor Weil has stressed, "the courts are unanirno~s"~~, narnely the principle that "equity does not necessarily imply equality"". Bahrain also ignores the equally well-established principle of non-encroachment which requires that the chosen method of delimitation must not leave one State with maritime areas extending across the coasts of the other State ~oncerned~~. Bahrain cannot, on the one hand, claim to be applying customary international law to the maritime delimitation operation in the northern sector and, on the other hand and at the same time, reject at ieast implicitly, or in any event disregard, certain of the most important rules of that law by its extreme claim in that same sector. Bahrain is in reality attempting, in its proposa1 for delimitation in the northern " BM, para. 650. 61 Ibid. 62 See, para. 8.14, above. 63 BM, para. 638. 64 Weil, The L m ofMaritirne Delimitation - Reflections, op. cit., QCM, Annex IV.58, Vol. 4, p. 453, at p. 458. 65 See, paras. 8.22, et seq., below; see, also, QM, paras. 12.17, et seq. 66 See, paras. 8.34, et seq., below.
~ector'~, based upon its distorted statement of the applicable law, to "completely refashion nature" or to "totally refashion geography", contrary to the principles constantly reiterated in the jurisprudence of the Courtb8. Section 3. The maritime boundary clnimed by Bahrain in the northern sector fails to take 'fgeographical realities" into account 8.17 In its Mernorial Bahrain gives only a superficial and incomplete picture of the geographical realities that are to be taken into consideration in making the maritime delimitation in the northern sector. This is so when it states that "the northem sector does not, unlike the southern sector, contain nurnerous insular and other legally relevant maritime featuresW6? It would have been more accurate to state that there are no islands, rocks or low- tide elevations to interrupt the uniformity of the sea-bed in the maritime areas Iying off the north of Qatar and to the north of point BLV. Bahrain has omitted to mention that: "... the sea-bed in that area is characterised by its geoiogical and geomorphological unity. There is no fundamental discontinuity forming a sort of natüral boundary to interrupt the extension of Qatar's continental shelf towards the north and north-west, or that of Bahrain's continental shelf towards the east and north-eastH70. 8.18 Moreover, Bahrain's Mernorial gives a one-sided and distorted picture of the geographical facts7', which are decisive for the maritime delimitation in the northern sector, and although their legai relevance has consistently been reiterated in the jurisprudence. As the Chamber recalled in its Sudgrnent of 12 October 1984 in the case conceming maritime delimitation in the area of the Gulf of Maine, the identification of the relevant equitable principles and the choice of the practical methods of delimitation "are basically founded upon Sce, para. 8.33, below. 68 See, for example, North Sea Continenlal SheK I.C.J. Reporfs 1969, pp. 49-50, para. 91. 69 BM, para. 638. QM, para. 12.24. See, also, QM, para. 12.25. 7 1 See, paras. 6.75, et seq., aboue.
- Page 226 and 227: was presented by Bahrain prior to t
- Page 228 and 229: drawing the boundary. They werc eve
- Page 230 and 231: 6.75 It is only when examining the
- Page 232 and 233: opposite coasts, as most recently i
- Page 234 and 235: 6.87 Contrary to the true facts, Ba
- Page 236 and 237: B. The reasons for the choice of th
- Page 238 and 239: ) The northernmost point of the coa
- Page 240 and 241: agreement, it is said that point 1
- Page 242 and 243: islands immediately adjacent to it
- Page 244 and 245: Section 2. Historical circumstances
- Page 246 and 247: 7.16 The sarne trend exists in the
- Page 248 and 249: 2. The precedent of the maritime de
- Page 250 and 251: which would satisfy both the requir
- Page 252 and 253: the GuinedGuinea-Bissau arbitration
- Page 254 and 255: an international tribunal, the task
- Page 256 and 257: In the GuineaIGuinea-Bissau Arbitra
- Page 259 and 260: has been to give preference to draw
- Page 261 and 262: 7.47 If a significant difference be
- Page 263: PROVISIONAL EQUl DISTANCE LlNE IN T
- Page 268 and 269: CHAPTER VI11 THE SINGLE MARITIME BO
- Page 270 and 271: Parties to the present case. Bahrai
- Page 272 and 273: delimitation area in the northern s
- Page 274 and 275: 8.13 However, as already notedq5, a
- Page 278 and 279: geography", and these methods must
- Page 280 and 281: In thus endorsing the dichotomy bet
- Page 282 and 283: element, plays a fwidarnental role
- Page 284 and 285: "The Court does not ... consider th
- Page 286 and 287: 8.31 The sarne approach may be foun
- Page 288 and 289: The Court's dictum, in its Judgment
- Page 290 and 291: 8.39 Moreover, Qatar would like to
- Page 292 and 293: The course of section OQR is based
- Page 294 and 295: on chart No. 5001, at 1 :50 000 sca
- Page 296 and 297: Sprcially prcparcd for prcscntation
- Page 298 and 299: facts. Nor cm Bahrain properly argu
- Page 300 and 301: a) First reason: Dibal is not an in
- Page 302 and 303: central part of the Arabian-Persian
- Page 304 and 305: of the oldest, and richest, pearl f
- Page 306 and 307: , testimony, to which Bahrain refer
- Page 308 and 309: ) Bahrain's claim that it excrcised
- Page 310 and 311: It is therefore not surprising to f
- Page 312 and 313: 8.82 The third consequence of the p
- Page 314 and 315: 8.85 In the light of the foregoing,
- Page 316: 8.89 During the negotiations with S
- Page 319 and 320: governed by the rules of customary
- Page 321 and 322: Section 5. Qatar's line in the nort
- Page 323 and 324: which is practically equidistant fi
- Page 325 and 326: any way trespass upon its natural p
~ector'~, based upon its distorted statement of the applicable law, to "completely refashion<br />
nature" or to "totally refashion geography", contrary to the principles constantly reiterated in<br />
the jurispru<strong>de</strong>nce of the <strong>Cour</strong>tb8.<br />
Section 3. The maritime boundary clnimed by <strong>Bahrain</strong> in the northern sector fails to<br />
take 'fgeographical realities" into account<br />
8.17 In its Mernorial <strong>Bahrain</strong> gives only a superficial and incomplete picture of the<br />
geographical realities that are to be taken into consi<strong>de</strong>ration in making the maritime<br />
<strong>de</strong>limitation in the northern sector. This is so when it states that "the northem sector does not,<br />
unlike the southern sector, contain nurnerous insular and other legally relevant maritime<br />
featuresW6? It would have been more accurate to state that there are no islands, rocks or low-<br />
ti<strong>de</strong> elevations to interrupt the uniformity of the sea-bed in the maritime areas Iying off the<br />
north of <strong>Qatar</strong> and to the north of point BLV. <strong>Bahrain</strong> has omitted to mention that:<br />
"... the sea-bed in that area is characterised by its geoiogical and geomorphological<br />
unity. There is no fundamental discontinuity forming a sort of natüral boundary to<br />
interrupt the extension of <strong>Qatar</strong>'s continental shelf towards the north and north-west, or<br />
that of <strong>Bahrain</strong>'s continental shelf towards the east and north-eastH70.<br />
8.18 Moreover, <strong>Bahrain</strong>'s Mernorial gives a one-si<strong>de</strong>d and distorted picture of the<br />
geographical facts7', which are <strong>de</strong>cisive for the maritime <strong>de</strong>limitation in the northern sector,<br />
and although their legai relevance has consistently been reiterated in the jurispru<strong>de</strong>nce. As the<br />
Chamber recalled in its Sudgrnent of 12 October 1984 in the case conceming maritime<br />
<strong>de</strong>limitation in the area of the Gulf of Maine, the i<strong>de</strong>ntification of the relevant equitable<br />
principles and the choice of the practical methods of <strong>de</strong>limitation "are basically foun<strong>de</strong>d upon<br />
Sce, para. 8.33, below.<br />
68 See, for example, North Sea Continenlal SheK I.C.J. Reporfs 1969, pp. 49-50, para. 91.<br />
69 BM, para. 638.<br />
QM, para. 12.24. See, also, QM, para. 12.25.<br />
7 1<br />
See, paras. 6.75, et seq., aboue.
Change language