PIL “ TREATIES CASES “
Bahrain contested the jurisdic-
CASE 1 QUATAR VS. BAHARIAN
Synopsis of Rule of Law:   An in-
ternational agreement creating
rights and obligations can be con-
stituted by the signatories to the
minutes of meetings and letters
exchanged.
FACTS :
1. Quatar filed a case against
Bahrain in the ICJ. For these
reasons :
A. sovereignty over the Hawar is-
lands,
B. sovereign rights over the shoals
of Dibal and Quit'at Jaradah
AND
C. the delimitation of the maritime
areas of the two states.
2. Qatar stated that the ICJ had
jurisdiction because of two
agreements between the par-
ties dated December 1987 and
December 1990.
3. Baharian suggested a formula
to settle the dispute regarding
the territories.
4.
tion of the ICJ arguing that
none of the documents re-
ferred to by Qatar contained a
commitment to have the dis-
pute settled by the Court.
5. In 1987, the Parties accepted,
in an exchange of letters, pro-
posals by Saudi Arabia
6. The exchange of letter stated
that they would craft ways and
mean to let the ICJ settle the
dispute is the Saudi Arabian
king cannot settle the dispute in
6 months. One of the ways to
create a committee composed
on the countries in dispute plus
Saudi Arabia to aid in gettin the
dispute to the ICJ.
7. In short, in 1987 the parties had
committed themselves to sub-
mit all disputed matters to the
Court
8. In 1988, Bahrain transmitted a
text to Qatar (the "Bahraini for-
mula") in which the Parties re-
quest ICJ "to decide any mat-
ter of territorial right or title or
interest which may be a matter
of difference between their re-
spective maritime areas of
 seabed, subsoil and superja-
cent waters."
9. THIS IS THE TEST OF BAHARAIN
THAT STATED THAT IT WISHED TO
CASE TO FALL UNDER THE JU-
RISDICTION OF THE ICJ
10. At the 1990 annual meeting of
the Co-operation Council of
Arab States of the Gulf, Qatar
was ready to to accept the
Bahraini formula.
11. The minutes of the meeting
(Doha Minutes) ( 2 MINUTES )
show the two parties reaffirmed
THAT THEY WISH TO BE UNDER
THE JURISDICTION OF THE ICJ
12. So her the Bahraini formula will
be used to settle the delimita-
tion dispute.
13. Bahrain contends that neither
the 1987 agreements nor the
1990 minutes constitute legally
binding instruments which allow
for a unilateral seizure of the
Court.
ARGUMENTS:
1. Bahrain :   that no agreement
existed because he never in-
tended to enter an agreement.
this is the DOHA minutes
agreement.
2. Quatar : We consider it an in-
ternational agreement.
NOTE:
1. they both agreed that the ex-
change of letters sent was an in-
ternational agreement.
ISSUES :
I. WON the minutes and the ex-
change of letter constitutes a
legally binding agreement un-
der international law? YES
RULING :
I. The Court concluded that the
1987 exchange of letters and
the 1990 minutes were in-
ternational agreements binding
upon the parties. The Court
found that the minutes were
not only a simple record of ne-
gotiations, but enumerated
commitments to which the par-
ties had consented. They thus
created rights and duties in in-
ternational law for the parties.
- International agreements do not that it had jurisdiction and that
take a single form under the Vien- the case was admissible.
na Convention on the Law of
Treaties, and the Court has en-
forced this rule in the past. In this
case, the Minutes not only contain
the record of the meetings be-
tween the parties, it also con-
tained the reaffirmation of obliga-
tions previously agreed to and
agreement to allow the King of
Saudi Arabia to try to find a solu-
tion to the dispute during a six-
month period, and indicated the
possibility of the involvement of the
I.C.J. 

II. The Court held that the ex-

change of letters, together with
the Doha Minutes, constituted
an agreement between the
parties to submit the whole of
the dispute to the Court.

NOTES :

1. 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 submit-
ted the whole of the dispute.
The Court therefore considered