QATAR vs.

United Arab Emirates

FACTS:

On,11 June 2018, Qatar initiated ICJ proceedings against the UAE-the only
member of the quartet that has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ under
CERD- under Articles 2 and 4-7 of that convention for encouraging racial
hatred against Qatar and Qataris, and violating Qatari’s human rights to
marriage and choice of spouse, freedom of opinion and expression, public
health and medical care, education and training, property, work, participation
in cultural activities, and equal treatment before tribunals. Under Article 41 of
the Statute of the Court, Qatar asked for provisional measures “to protect
against further, irreparable harm to the rights of Qataris and their families
under CERD, and to prevent aggravation or extension of the dispute.

At the end of its second round of oral observations, the UAE requested the
Court “to reject the request for the indication of provisional measures
submitted by the State of Qatar”.

At the hearings, Members of the Court put questions to the Parties, to which
replies were given in writing, in accordance with Article 61, paragraph 4, of the
Rules of Court. Under Article 72 of the Rules of Court, each Party presented
written comments on the written replies received from the other.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there are plausible human rights violations causing irreparable
harm, and imposed provisional measures.

RULING:
In its 23 of July Order the ICJ ruled that there are plausible human rights
violations causing irreparable harm, and imposed provisional measures. Of
Qatar’s nine requests they granted three: concerning mixed families, students,
and access to UAE courts. This was a knife-edge decision.

In the present case, Qatar seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court on Article
36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on Article 22 of CERD. The
Court must therefore first determine whether those provisions prima facie
confer upon it jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case, enabling it — if the
other necessary conditions are fulfilled — to indicate provisional measures.

Qatar and the UAE are parties to CERD. Qatar acceded to that instrument on
22 July 1976, without entering any reservation; the UAE did so on 20 June
1974, without entering a reservation to Article 22 or any other relevant
reservation for the present purposes.

Article 22 of CERD provides that:

“Any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the
interpretation or application of this Convention, which is not settled by
negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention,
shall, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, be referred to the
International Court of Justice for decision, unless the disputants agree to
another mode of settlement.”

In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, prima facie, it has jurisdiction

pursuant to Article 22 of CERD to deal with the case to the extent that the
dispute between the Parties relates to the “interpretation or application” of the
said Convention.

The Court found that it did have jurisdictions for the purposes of provisional
measures, based on a pre-existing dispute and that there were no alternate
measures such as negotiations underway to resolve the dispute. Interestingly,
while the court noted that there was an application before the CERD
Committee, it did not consider this sufficient.

On the substantive aspects of the application, the court narrowly found that
there was a prima facie case that could be made, based on alleged violations
of the convention. To be clear, this determination is only for the purpose of
interim relief, and the standard the court applies is substantially less than in its
final determination on the merits of the case.

The Court concludes from all of the above considerations that the conditions
required by its Statute for it to indicate provisional measures are met. It is
therefore necessary, pending its final decision, for the Court to indicate certain
measures in order to protect the rights claimed by Qatar.