Citation.​ I.C.J., 1994 I.C.J.

112

Brief Fact Summary. A claim to settle a dispute involving sovereignty over certain islands, sovereign
rights over certain shoals and delimitation of a maritime boundary was filed by Qatar (P) in the
International Court of Justice against Bahrain (D). The Court’s jurisdiction was however disputed by
Bahrain (D).

Synopsis of Rule of Law. An international agreement creating rights and obligations can be constituted
by the signatories to the minutes of meetings and letters exchanged.

Facts. A dispute concerning sovereignty over certain islands and shoals, including the delimitation of a
maritime boundary were issues upon which Qatar (P) and Bahrain (D) sought to resolve for 20 years.
During this period of time, letters were exchanged and acknowledged by both parties heads of state. A
Tripartite Committee “for the purpose of approaching the International Court of Justice…..” was formed
by representatives of Qatar (P), Bahrain (D) and Saudi Arabia. Though the committee met several time, it
failed to produce an agreement on the specific terms for submitting the dispute to the Court. Eventually,
the meetings culminated in “Minutes”, which reaffirmed the process and stipulated that the parties
“may” submit the dispute to the I.C.J. after giving the Saudi King six months to resolve the dispute. The
Court’s jurisdiction was disputed by Bahrain (D) when Qatar (P) filed a claim in the I.C.J.

Issue. Yes. An international agreement creating rights and obligations can be constituted by the
signatories to the minutes of meetings and letters exchanged. Though Bahrain (D) argued that the
Minutes were only a record of negotiation and could not serve as a basis for the I.C.J.’s jurisdiction, both
parties agreed that the letters constituted an international agreement with binding force.

International agreements do not take a single form under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
and the Court has enforced this rule in the past. In this case, the Minutes not only contain the record of
the meetings between the parties, it also contained the reaffirmation of obligations previously agreed to
and agreement to allow the King of Saudi Arabia to try to find a solution to the dispute during a
six-month period, and indicated the possibility of the involvement of the I.C.J. The Minutes stipulated
commitments to which the parties agreed, thereby creating rights and obligations in international law.
This is the basis therefore of the existence of international agreement.

On the part of the Bahrain’s (D) Foreign Minister, he argued that no agreement existed because he
never intended to enter an agreement fails on the grounds that he signed documents creating rights and
obligations for his country. Also, Qatar’s (P) delay in applying to the United Nations Secretariat does not
indicate that Qatar (P) never considered the Minutes to be an international agreement as Bahrain (D)
argued. However, the registration and non-registration with the Secretariat does not have any effect on
the validity of the agreement.

Held. Yes. An international agreement creating rights and obligations can be constituted by the
signatories to the minutes of meetings and letters exchanged. Though Bahrain (D) argued that the
Minutes were only a record of negotiation and could not serve as a basis for the I.C.J.’s jurisdiction, both
parties agreed that the letters constituted an international agreement with binding force.

Discussion. There is no doubt that language plays a vital role in influencing a court’s decision as to
whether an agreement has been entered into and in this particular case, the language was the main
focus of the I.C.J and it was the contents of the Minutes that persuaded the I.C.J. to reject the Bahrain
foreign minister’s (D) claim that he did not intend to enter into an agreement. Where this is compared
to general U.S. contract law, where a claim by one of the parties that no contract existed because there
was no meeting of the minds might be the ground upon which a U.S. court would consider whether a
contract did exist with more care and thought than the I.C.J. gave the foreign minister of Bahrain’s (D)
claims.

Qatar vs Bahrain
* Treaties. While treaties are generally in written form, there are writers who hold that even an oral
agreement can be binding. However, only written agreements that are new come under the provisions of
the Vienna Convention. No particular form is prescribed.

Facts: On 8 July 1991 Qatar filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings
against Bahrain in respect of certain disputes between the two States relating to "sovereignty over the
Hawar islands, sovereign rights over the shoals of Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah, and the delimitation of the
maritime areas of the two States". Qatar contended that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the
dispute by virtue of two "agreements" concluded between the Parties in December 1987 and
December 1990 respectively, the subject and scope of the commitment to the Court's jurisdiction being
determined, according to the Applicant, by a formula proposed by Bahrain to Qatar on 26 October 1988
and accepted by Qatar in December 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bahraini formula"). By letters
of 14 July and 18 August 1991, Bahrain contested the basis of jurisdiction invoked by Qatar.

By a Judgment of 1 July 1994, the Court found that the exchanges of letters between the King of Saudi
Arabia and the Amir of Qatar of 19 and 21 December 1987, and between the King of Saudi Arabia and
the Amir of Bahrain of 19 and 26 December 1987, and the document headed "Minutes" and signed at
Doha on 25 December 1990 by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were
international agreements creating rights and obligations for the Parties; and that, by the terms of those
agreements, the Parties had undertaken to submit to the Court the whole of the dispute between them,
as circumscribed by the Bahraini formula. The Court decided to afford the Parties the opportunity to
submit to it the whole of the dispute. After each of the Parties had filed a document on the question
within the time-limit fixed, the Court, by a Judgment of 15 February 1995, found that it had jurisdiction
to adjudicate upon the dispute between Qatar and Bahrain which had been submitted to it; that it was
now seised of the whole of the dispute; and that the Application of the State of Qatar as formulated on
30 November 1994 was admissible. In the course of the written proceedings on the merits, Bahrain
challenged the authenticity of 82 documents produced by Qatar as annexed to its pleadings.

Arguments: On the part of the Bahrain’s (D) Foreign Minister, he argued that no agreement existed
because he never intended to enter an agreement fails on the grounds that he signed documents
creating rights and obligations for his country. Also, Qatar’s (P) delay in applying to the United Nations
Secretariat does not indicate that Qatar (P) never considered the Minutes to be an international
agreement as Bahrain (D) argued. However, the registration and non-registration with the Secretariat
does not have any effect on the validity of the agreement.

Issue: Whether or not an international agreement creating rights and obligations can be constituted by
the signatories to the minutes of meetings and letters exchanged.

Held: Yes. An international agreement creating rights and obligations can be constituted by the
signatories to the minutes of meetings and letters exchanged. Though Bahrain (D) argued that the
Minutes were only a record of negotiation and could not serve as a basis for the I.C.J.’s jurisdiction, both
parties agreed that the letters constituted an international agreement with binding force. International
agreements do not take a single form under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the
Court has enforced this rule in the past.
 In this case, the Minutes not only contain the record of the meetings between the parties, it also
contained the reaffirmation of obligations previously agreed to and agreement to allow the King of Saudi
Arabia to try to find a solution to the dispute during a six-month period, and indicated the possibility of
the involvement of the I.C.J. The Minutes stipulated commitments to which the parties agreed, thereby
creating rights and obligations in international law.

This is the basis therefore of the existence of international agreement.

Additional information: ​There is no doubt that language plays a vital role in influencing a court’s
decision as to whether an agreement has been entered into and in this particular case, the language
was the main focus of the I.C.J and it was the contents of the Minutes that persuaded the I.C.J. to
reject the Bahrain foreign minister’s claim that he did not intend to enter into an agreement. Where
this is compared to general U.S. contract law, where a claim by one of the parties that no contract
existed because there was no meeting of the minds might be the ground upon which a U.S. court would
consider whether a contract did exist with more care and thought than the I.C.J. gave the foreign
minister of Bahrain’s claims.