Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
4. Zubarah;
5. The areas for fishing for pearls and for fishing for
swimming fish and other matters connected with maritime
boundaries."
On 30 November 1994, the Registry of the Court received a
document from Bahrain entitled "Report of the State of Bahrain to
the International Court of Justice on the attempt by the Parties to
implement the Court's Judgement of 1st July, 1994". In that
document Bahrain argued that the Judgement of 1 July 1994
required a consensual submission of the whole of the dispute. Yet,
the documents presented by Qatar rested within the unilateral
Application of 8 July 1991. In its observations of 5 December 1994
regarding Qatar's Act of 30 November 1994, Bahrain argued that
the Court did not declare in its Judgement of 1 July 1994 that it
had jurisdiction. Bahrain submitted that the Court lacked
jurisdiction at that time because of the unilateral application of
Qatar. According to Bahrain, as the Act of 30 November 1994
presented by Qatar rested within the framework of the initial
unilateral application the Court still lacked jurisdiction. The Court
therefore had to decide whether the exchange of letters or the
1990 Doha Minutes permitted a unilateral application.
The Court held that the exchange of letters, together with the
Doha Minutes, constituted an agreement between the parties to
submit the whole of the dispute to the Court. Concerning the
modalities of application, the parties had different views on the
interpretation of the arabic term "al-tarafan". Bahrain argued that
it meant both parties whereas Qatar understood it as meaning
"each party". The Court interpreted the term in the light of its
context and its aim and came to the conclusion that it meant an
alternative, not cumulative seisen. Therefore, the Court
understood the Doha Minutes to allow a unilateral application by
each of the parties.
As to the question of whether the "whole of the dispute" was
submitted, the Court held that with the Act of 30 November 1994
Qatar had indeed submitted the whole of the dispute. The Court
therefore considered that it had jurisdiction and that the case was
admissible.
Five Judges appended dissenting opinions. According to Judge
Schwebel, the Court did not examine thoroughly enough the
drafting of the 1990 Doha Minutes during which the explicit
possibility for each party to seize the Court was amended to a
text which only meant "the parties". This element of the "travaux
prparatoires" led Judge Schwebel to the conclusion that a
unilateral application was excluded. Judge Oda repeated his
opinion from the first judgement where he considered the Doha
Minutes not to constitute an agreement within Article 36 (1) of the
Court's Statute. Judge Koroma and judge ad-hoc Valticos were of
the opinion that the term "al-tarafan" and the drafting history
must lead to the conclusion that a unilateral application was not
intended by the parties. Since no joint action by Bahrain and
Qatar was taken they considered that the Court had no
jurisdiction.