copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-04-10): Concerning the legal status of Qit’at Jaradah – a maritime feature belonging to Bahrain – for instance, Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva and Koroma, in the 2001 Qatar/Bahrain case (Merits), took the view that geomorphological characteristics of Qit’at Jaradah did not make it an island because it was not terra firma. Nonetheless, the majority opinion considered Qit’at Jaradah as an island.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2017-08-19): "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 their maritime areas. (…) [...] As to Qit’at Jaradah, the nature of which was disputed, the Court held that it should be considered as an island because it was above water at high tide ; the Court added that the activities which had been carried out by Bahrain were sufficient to support its claim of sovereignty over the island. With regard to low-tide elevations, the Court, after noting that international treaty law was silent on the question whether those elevations should be regarded as "territory", found that low-tide elevations situated in the overlapping area of the territorial seas of both States could not be taken into consideration for the purposes of drawing the equidistance line. That was true of Fasht ad Dibal, which both Parties regarded as a low-tide elevation. The Court then considered whether there were any special circumstances which made it necessary to adjust the equidistance line in order to obtain an equitable result. It found that there were such circumstances which justified choosing a delimitation line passing on the one hand between Fasht al Azm and Qit’at ash Shajarah and, on the other, between Qit’at Jaradah and Fasht ad Dibal.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2004-01-01): In addition to maintaining strong relations with its largest financial backers, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E., Bahrain has worked to improve its relations with Qatar and has proper, but not warm, relations with Iran. Bahrain-Iran relations have been strained since the discovery in 1981 of an Iran-sponsored coup plot in Bahrain. Bahraini suspicions of the Iranian role in local unrest in the mid-1990s remain. On March 16, 2001, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced its judgment on the long-standing maritime delimitation and territorial dispute between Bahrain and Qatar. The binding judgment awarded sovereignty over the Hawar Islands and Qit'at Jaradah to Bahrain and sovereignty over Zubarah (part of the Qatar Peninsula), Janan Island and Fasht ad Dibal to Qatar. The peaceful settlement of this dispute has allowed for renewed co-operation, including plans to construct a causeway between the two countries.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-04-23): Judgment of 16 March 2001 [p. 99] 195. The Court recalls that the legal definition of an island is "a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide" (1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, Art. 10, para. 1; 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, Art. 121, para. 1). The Court has carefully analysed the evidence submitted by the Parties and weighed the conclusions of the experts referred to above, in particular the fact that the experts appointed by Qatar did not themselves maintain that it was scientifically proven that Qit'at Jaradah is a low-tide elevation. On these bases, the Court concludes that the maritime feature of Qit'at Jaradah satisfies the above-mentioned criteria and that it is an island which should as such be taken into consideration for the drawing of the equidistance line. [...] Whereas Qatar maintains - just as it did with regard to Qit'at Jaradah - that Fasht ad Dibal as a low-tide elevation cannot be appropriated, Bahrain contends that low-tide elevations by their very nature are territory, and therefore can be appropriated in accordance with the criteria which pertain to the acquisition of territory.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2018-02-28): Notably, in the Qatar/Bahrain case, the ICJ expressly stated that ‘islands, regardless of their size, in this respect enjoy the same status, and therefore generate the same maritime rights, as other land territory’ and that Article 121(2) UNCLOS codifies customary international law.[10] This statement is the more important since, in that particular case, the ICJ was examining, among other issues, the nature of Qit’at Jaradah, a tiny feature located in the maritime space between the parties.[11] [...] This is, indeed, what happened in the Qatar/Bahrain case mentioned above. After recalling the general principle, the ICJ went on to examine the nature of Qit’at Jaradah and determined that it was an ‘island’: The Court thus seemed to suggest that Qit’at Jaradah would be given full effect in generating maritime zones. However, the final outcome is quite different, as eventually Qit’at Jaradah did not even have effect for the delimitation of the territorial sea. In fact, according to the Court,
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (1995-02-15): In its Judgment the Court recalls that on 8 July 1991 Qatar filed 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. [...] 2. Fasht al Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah; [...] Further to its Application Qatar requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Bahrain has no sovereignty or other territorial right over the island of Janan or over Zubarah, and that any claim by Bahrain concerning archipelagic baselines and areas for fishing for pearls and swimming fish would be irrelevant for the purpose of maritime delimitation in the present case."
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (1999-01-01): They are also laid down in the Rules of Court in Article 38 for cases instituted by application; and in Article 39 for notification of a special agreement. In the present case the identity of the parties presents no difficulty; but the subject of the dispute is another matter. 35. What, then, is "the subject of the dispute" referred to in Qatar's Application? That Application only presents the questions which Qatar would like the Court to decide. Qatar's "requests" in its Application are thus as follows: "Reserving its right to supplement or amend its requests, the State of Qatar requests the Court: I. To adjudge and declare in accordance with international law (A)that the State of Qatar has sovereignty over the Hawar islands; and, (B)that the State of Qatar has sovereign rights over Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah shoals; and II. With due regard to the line dividing the sea-bed of the two States as described in the British decision of 23 December 1947, to draw in accordance with international law a single maritime boundary between the maritime areas of sea-bed, subsoil and superjacent waters appertaining respectively to the State of Qatar and the State of Bahrain." 36.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2002-01-09): 8 This feature lies a few nautical miles north of Qit’at Jaradah, is closer to the Qatar peninsula than to the main islands of Bahrain, but is still within 12 nautical miles of both states’ presumed coastal baselines. [...] 52 Qit’at ash Shajarah is a low-tide elevation just to the east of Fasht al Azm. The Court stated that if Fasht al Azm were to be regarded as part of the island of Sitrah, it would not be appropriate to take the equidistance line as the maritime boundary since, in view of the fact that less than 20 per cent of the surface of this island is permanently above water, this would place the boundary disproportionately close to Qatar’s mainland. If, on the other hand, Fasht al Azm were to be regarded as a low-tide elevation, the equidistance line would brush Fasht al Azm, and for this reason would also be an inappropriate delimitation. [...] In that submission, Bahrain asked the Court to "adjudge and declare that. . . [i]n view of Bahrain’s sovereignty over all the insular and other features, including Fasht ad Dibal and Qit’atjaradah, comprising the Bahraini archipelago, the maritime boundary between Bahrain and Qatar is as described" in Bahrain’s memorial (part II), countermemorial (part II), and reply.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2016-12-05): The maritime and territorial dispute between Qatar and Bahrain is part of many lingering disputes about pieces of territory, and maritime boundaries in the Persian Gulf area. Qatar and Bahrain were trying to solve their long running dispute about, for instance, the Hawar islands and the Dibai and Qit’at Jaradah shoals. Saudi Arabia was trying to mediate between the parties, and was successful in selling the parties to either arbitration or judicial settlement of the dispute. In 1983, they agreed to consult with Saudi Arabia on seeking a binding, third-party ruling, should negotiations failed. In 1987, Qatar and Bahrain subsequently agreed to Saudi proposals to take their case to the International Court of Justice. This and other obligations were reaffirmed in the agreed meeting minutes of a 1990 meeting between the parties. In these minutes, they also agreed that after a certain period, ’the parties may submit the matter to the International Court of Justice’. So that is what Qatar did.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-04-23): Judgment of 16 March 2001 [pp. 99-100] 196. Bahrain claims that Qit'at Jaradah comes under Bahraini sovereignty, since it has displayed its authority over it in various ways, and that this was recognized by the British Government in 1947. In this respect it has referred to a number of activities, including the erection of a beacon, the ordering of the drilling of an artesian well, the granting of an oil concession, and the licensing of fish traps. Qatar contends that Qit'at Jaradah, being a low-tide elevation, cannot be appropriated, and that, since it is situated in the part of the territorial sea which belong to Qatar, Qatar has sovereign rights over it. [...] Jaradah is a very small island situated within the 12-mile limit of both States. According to the report of the expert commissioned by Bahrain, at high tide its length and breadth are about 12 by 4 metres, whereas at low tide they are 600 and 75 metres. At high tide, its altitude is approximately 0.4 metres. [...] Jaradah, the activities carried out by Bahrain on that island must be considered sufficient to support Bahrain's claim that it has sovereignty over it.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2016-12-05): The maritime and territorial dispute between Qatar and Bahrain is part of many lingering disputes about pieces of territory, and maritime boundaries in the Persian Gulf area. Qatar and Bahrain were trying to solve their long running dispute about, for instance, the Hawar islands and the Dibai and Qit’at Jaradah shoals. Saudi Arabia was trying to mediate between the parties, and was successful in selling the parties to either arbitration or judicial settlement of the dispute. In 1983, they agreed to consult with Saudi Arabia on seeking a binding, third-party ruling, should negotiations failed. In 1987, Qatar and Bahrain subsequently agreed to Saudi proposals to take their case to the International Court of Justice. This and other obligations were reaffirmed in the agreed meeting minutes of a 1990 meeting between the parties. In these minutes, they also agreed that after a certain period, ’the parties may submit the matter to the International Court of Justice’. So that is what Qatar did.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-08-29): Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain [...] In July 1991, Qatar submitted a claim against Bahrain before the International Court of Justice to adjudicate the sovereignty over Hawar Islands, Zubarah, Janan Island, shoals of Dibal and Qit’at Jaradah, and for delimitation of maritime areas of the two States. A decade after instituting proceedings before the International Court of Justice, a decision in the long-standing dispute was issued in 2001. [...] Maritime Delimitation und Territorial Questions between Qatar und Bahrain, Order of 17 February 1999, I. C. J. Reports 1999, 3
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (1996-09-30): As to Qit’at Jaradah, the nature of which was disputed, the Court held that it should be considered as an island because it was above water at high tide ; the Court added that the activities which had been carried out by Bahrain were sufficient to support its claim of sovereignty over the island. With regard to low-tide elevations, the Court, after noting that international treaty law was silent on the question whether those elevations should be regarded as "territory", found that low-tide elevations situated in the overlapping area of the territorial seas of both States could not be taken into consideration for the purposes of drawing the equidistance line. That was true of Fasht ad Dibal, which both Parties regarded as a low-tide elevation. The Court then considered whether there were any special circumstances which made it necessary to adjust the equidistance line in order to obtain an equitable result. It found that there were such circumstances which justified choosing a delimitation line passing on the one hand between Fasht al Azm and Qit’at ash Shajarah and, on the other, between Qit’at Jaradah and Fasht ad Dibal.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-01-01): Bahrain claims that Qit'at Jaradah comes under Bahraini sovereignty, since it has displayed its authority over it in various ways, and that this was recognized by the British Government in 1947. In this respect it has referred to a number of activities, including the erection of a beacon, the ordering of the drilling of an artesian well, the granting of an oil concession, and the licensing of fish traps. Qatar contends that Qit'at Jaradah, being a low—tide elevation, cannot be appropriated, and that, since it is situated in the part of the territorial sea which belongs to Qatar, Qatar has sovereign rights over it. The Court first notes that Qit'at Jaradah is a very small island situated within the 12–mile limit of both States. According to the report of the expert commissioned by Bahrain, at high tide its length and breadth are about 12 by 4 metres, whereas at low tide they are 600 and 75 metres. At high tide, its altitude is approximately 0.4 metres. Certain types of activities invoked by Bahrain such as the drilling of artesian wells would, taken by themselves, be considered controversial as acts performed à titre de souverain. The construction of navigational aids, on the other hand, can be legally relevant in the case of very small islands. In the present case, taking into account the size of Qit'at Jaradah, the activities carried out by Bahrain on that island must be considered sufficient to support Bahrain's claim that it has sovereignty over it.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-09-12): In 1991 the dispute flared up again after Qatar instituted proceedings to let the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, decide whether it had jurisdiction. The two countries exchanged complaints that their respective naval vessels had harassed the other's shipping in disputed waters.[1] In 1996, Bahrain boycotted the GCC summit hosted in Qatar, claiming that the last summit held in Qatar in 1990 was used as a platform to reiterate their territorial claims to the other GCC states. They also cited the 1986 Qatari incursion in Fasht Dibal as a reason for not attending.[6] The disputes were resolved by the International Court of Justice on 16 March 2001, awarding both sides equal amounts of land, giving Bahrain the Hawar Islands (excluding the Janan Island), Qit'at Jaradah, and Fasht Al Azm, with Qatar receiving Zubarah, Fasht Dibal, and the Janan Island.[7]
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2023-06-27): Qit'at Jaradah is a cay in the Persian Gulf to the east of Bahrain Island, located 32 km (20 mi) east of Manama, the capital of Bahrain. Historically, the feature is above water only during spring low tide;[1] it sits approximately midway between Bahrain and Qatar,[2] within the 12-mile (19 km) territorial waters of both countries.[3] It was one of several maritime features contributing to a long running dispute between Bahrain and Qatar.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2004-01-01): In addition to maintaining strong relations with its largest financial backers, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E., Bahrain has worked to improve its relations with Qatar and has proper, but not warm, relations with Iran. Bahrain-Iran relations have been strained since the discovery in 1981 of an Iran-sponsored coup plot in Bahrain. Bahraini suspicions of the Iranian role in local unrest in the mid-1990s remain. On March 16, 2001, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced its judgment on the long-standing maritime delimitation and territorial dispute between Bahrain and Qatar. The binding judgment awarded sovereignty over the Hawar Islands and Qit'at Jaradah to Bahrain and sovereignty over Zubarah (part of the Qatar Peninsula), Janan Island and Fasht ad Dibal to Qatar. The peaceful settlement of this dispute has allowed for renewed co-operation, including plans to construct a causeway between the two countries.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-10-06): The Qatar v. Bahrain Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions case was the first major maritime delimitation dispute settled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) since the 1993 Denmark v. Norway Maritime Delimitation in the Area Between Greenland and Jan Mayen Judgment. The latter was followed by the 1998 Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute Award and the 1999 Maritime Delimitation Award rendered by the Eritrea/Yemen Arbitral Tribunal. All three landmark cases provided instances of the application of the modern law of maritime boundary delimitation, as developed in what the President of the ICJ, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, described as the "notably Successful" equitable jurisprudence of the ICJ and arbitral tribunals. Like the Eritrea/Yemen arbitration and the recent Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea Intervening) proceedings, the Qatar v. Bahrain case involved issues of maritime delimitation in combination with those of territorial sovereignty and belonged to cases of particularly pronounced procedural and substantial importance. This Briefing provides a detailed analysis of the Qatar v. Bahrain case, including the 1994 and 1995 Jurisdiction and Admissibility Judgments and the 2001 Merits Judgment and Opinions. Topics covered include: the course of the proceedings; the delivery and components of the Judgment; the geographical setting; territorial sovereignty questions (Zubarah, the Hawar Islands, Janan Island, and Qit'at Jaradah and Fasht ad Dibal); and the maritime boundary delimitation.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-01-01): Qatar Vs Bahrain On Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-10-15): Qit’at Jaradah is a cay in the Arabian Gulf to the east of Bahrain Island, located 32 km (20 mi) east of Manama, the capital of Bahrain approximately midway between Bahrain and Qatar, within the 12-mile (19 km) territorial waters of both countries. It was one of several maritime features contributing to a long running dispute between Bahrain and Qatar. While historically Qit’at Jaradah has not been considered an island, Bahrain claimed in 2000 that it measured approximately 12 by 4 meters (39 ft × 13 ft) at high tide with an elevation of approximately 0.4 meters (1 ft 4 in), and 600 by 75 meters (1,969 ft × 246 ft) at low tide. The opposing view is that it is a low-tide elevation. The feature is uninhabited and without vegetation.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2016-03-24): This chapter describe a case which is concerned with the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Qatar and Bahrain in the southern part of the Arabian/Persian Gulf. The dispute combined land sovereignty and maritime delimitation aspects. The chapter considers the importance of the decision in this case for international law as a whole. The Qatar v. Bahrain judgment is perhaps best known for its treatment of islands, islets, shoals, and low-tide elevations and other small maritime features. This remains the most important practical aspect of the case today. The area of delimitation was littered with small features, particularly within the territorial sea areas. The size of many of those features changed substantially between high and low tide.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Bahrain (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-04-10): A second instance relating to low-tide elevations is the 2001 Qatar/Bahrain case (Merits). In this case, Qatar and Bahrain disputed whether Qit ’at Jaradah, a maritime feature situated northeast of Fasht al Azm, was an island or a low-tide elevation. According to Bahrain, there were strong indications that Qit ’at Jaradah was an island that remained dry at high tide. By referring to a number of eyewitness reports, Bahrain asserted that it was evident that part of its sandbank had not been covered by water for some time. According to the data submitted by Bahrain, at high tide, its length and breadth were about 12 by 4 metres, and its altitude was approximately 0.4 metres. However, Qatar argued that Qit’at Jaradah was always indicated on nautical charts as a low-tide elevation. Qatar also insisted that, even if there were periods when it was not completely submerged at high tide, its physical status was constantly changing and thus it should be considered as no more than a shoal. Having carefully analysed the evidence submitted by the Parties and the conclusions of experts, the ICJ held that Qit’at Jaradah was an island which should be considered for the determination of the equidistance line. Yet the reason why Qit’at Jaradah could be regarded an island, not a low-tide elevation, remains obscure.