copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-04-15): The Fasht Dibal conflict was a conflict that arose between Qatar and Bahrain.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2023-12-01): Fasht Dibal [edit]A dispute arose over Fasht Dibal in 1985 after Bahrain began constructing fortifications on the island. Qatar considered the construction to be a violation of an existing agreement made in 1978.[9] In April 1986, Qatari troops arrived on the island via helicopter and declared it a 'restricted zone'. They seized several Bahraini officials and 29 construction workers hired by the Dutch contracting company Ballast Nedam.[9][11] On 12 May 1986, following protests by the Netherlands and mediation by several GCC member states, Bahrain and Qatar reached a settlement, after which the foreign workers were released. Qatari troops evacuated the island on 15 June.[11] The island was later awarded to Qatar in the aftermath of the 2001 ICJ case.[10]
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-09-12): Bahrain and Qatar [edit]Starting in 1936, Qatar and Bahrain were involved in territorial disputes over the Hawar Islands, Fasht Al Azm, Fasht Dibal, Qit'at Jaradah, and Zubarah. The most substantial dispute was the Fasht Dibal conflict in 1985, after Bahrain began constructing fortifications on the island. Qatar considered the construction to be a violation of an existing agreement made in 1978.[4] In April 1986, Qatari troops arrived on the island via helicopter and declared it a 'restricted zone'. They seized several Bahraini officials and 29 construction workers hired by the Dutch contracting company Ballast Nedam.[5][4] On 12 May 1986, following protests by the Netherlands and mediation by several GCC member states, Bahrain and Qatar reached a settlement, after which the foreign workers were released. Qatari troops evacuated the island on 15 June.[5]
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 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: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2003-01-09): 11 Ibid, paras 169–70. The distinction between the southern and northern sectors is not altogether clear. In fact, while the Parties agreed that there were two sectors, their views differed regarding the location of the line dividing the two sectors. Bahrain proposed the line connecting Fasht-ad-Dibal with Fa's Rakan, while Qatar suggested a line drawn from Muharraq to Ra's Rakan, namely, the line MQ/RK marked as a ‘closing line’. Counter-Memorial submitted by Bahrain, paras 593–5; Counter-Memorial submitted by Qatar, Maps 6, 7, and 8. [...] 36 According to Qatar, Fasht ad Dibal is located 9.3 miles from the nearest point on the low-water line of Qatar and 13.7 miles from the nearest point on the low-water line of Bahrain. Memorial submitted by Qatar, 212, para 9.11. [...] 129 Although the legal nature of Fasht al Jarim was not specified, the Court held that, given its location, the low-water line might be used as the baseline from which the breadth not only of the territorial sea, but also of the continental shelf and the EEZ, is measured, ibid, para 245. It appears thus that the Court indirectly regarded it as an island, not a low-tide elevation, by referring to the breadth of the territorial sea as well as to the continental shelf/EEZ. If Fasht al Jarim were a low-tide elevation, it would have no continental shelf or EEZ. In addition, the Court observed that at most a minute part of Fasht al Jarim is above water at high tide.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-08-29): 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.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-04-23): [pp. 100-103] 200. Both Parties agree that Fasht ad Dibal is a low-tide elevation. 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. [...] 7. Paragraph 199 of the Judgment states that "Similar acts of authority have been invoked by Bahrain in order to support its claim that it has sovereignty over Fasht ad Dibal". However, for the above-stated reasons such acts, even if proved, cannot support the sovereignty claimed by Bahrain over Fasht ad Dibal.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2017-06-18): 1936: Territorial disputes erupt between Qatar and Bahrain over the Hawa, Zubarah, Fasht Al Azm, Fasht Dibal, and al-Jaradah islands. [...] 1986: Qatari troops arrive on Fasht Dibal Island via helicopter and declare the island a "restricted zone". Qatari troops seize several Bahraini officials and 29 construction workers hired by a Dutch contracting company. [...] 1996: For the second time, Bahrain boycotts the GCC summit hosted in Doha as a result of Qatari incursions in Fasht Dibal Island 2001: The ICJ awards Bahrain and Qatar equal amounts of land. Bahrain is given the Hawar Islands, Al-Jaradah and Fasht Al Azm while Qatar receives Zubarah, Fasht Dibal, and the Janan Island.
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (1999-01-01): The text of Bahrain's Article II read as follows: "The Court is requested: (1) to determine the extent to which the two States have exercised sovereignty over the Hawar Islands and have thus established such sovereignty; (2) to determine the legal status of and sovereign and other rights of both States in any features, other than Fasht ad Dibal and the Bahraini island of Qitat Jaradah in the Bahrain archipelago, or in any natural resources both living and non-living which may affect the delimitation referred to in paragraph (4) below; (3) to determine any other matter of territorial right or other title or interest claimed by either State in the land or maritime territory of the other; (4) . . . to draw a single maritime boundary . . ." (Memorial of Qatar, Ann. II.27.)
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 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: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-10-06): 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: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 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: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2001-03-16): Bahraini side and Fasht ad Dibal on the Qatari side (see paragraph 222 of the Judgment); [...] - The Court finds that Qatar has sovereignty over Zubarah and Janan Island and that the low-tide elevation of Fasht ad Dibal falls under the sovereignty of Qatar; it finds that Bahrain has sovereignty over the Hawar Islands and the island of Qit'at Jaradah; and it draws a single maritime boundary between the two States Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) - The Court finds that Qatar has sovereignty over Zubarah and Janan Island and that the low-tide elevation of Fasht ad Dibal falls under the sovereignty of Qatar; it finds that Bahrain has sovereignty over the Hawar Islands and the island of Qit'at Jaradah; and it draws a single maritime boundary between the two States
Claim: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2002-01-09): 46 The uncertain status of Fasht al Azm, discussed infra notes 51–52 and accompanying text, did not affect this conclusion, because "under both hypotheses [concerning that status], Fasht ad Dibal is largely or totally on the Qatari side of the adjusted equidistance line."Judgment, supra note 1, para. 220. [...] 51 If Fasht al Azm were considered part of Sitrah Island, it would "push" the equidistance line eastwards towards Qatar; if it were considered a low-tide elevation not naturally connected to the island, it would be disregarded for delimitation purposes on the same ground as Fasht ad Dibal. Id., para. 220; see id., sketch-map 3. [...] 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: Fasht Ad Dibal is a territory of Bahrain (Fasht Ad Dibal, 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): Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain Order [p.50] The President of the International Court of Justice, Having regard to Article 48 of the Statute of the Court, and to Articles 44 and 48 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the Application of the State of Qatar filed in the Registry of the Court on 8 July 1991, instituting proceedings against the State of 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; Whereas in that Application Qatar founds the jurisdiction of the Court upon certain agreements between the Parties stated to have been concluded in December 1987 and December 1990, the subject and scope of the commitment to jurisdiction being determined, according to Qatar, by a formula proposed by Bahrain to Qatar on 26 October 1988 and accepted by Qatar in December 1990; Whereas by letters addressed to the Registrar of the Court on 14 July 1991 and 18 August 1991 Bahrain contested the basis of jurisdiction invoked by Qatar; Whereas at a meeting between the President of the Court and the representatives of the
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (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 Qatar (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 Qatar (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 Qatar (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 Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2023-06-27): History [edit]Bahrain first claimed ownership of the cay in 1936, supported by the British Maritime Boundary Award of 1947. Qit'at Jaradah would be in Qatari waters with respect to the equidistant line that otherwise divides the nations in this area. The British were influenced by the de facto operations of oil companies at the time.[4] Although awarded to Bahrain, the feature was not classified as an island with territorial waters of 3 miles (4.8 km). This was consistent with the definition of an island of the Geneva Conference of 1958, which required an island to be above water at high tide. However, in 1959 the British attempted to reclassify Qit'at Jaradah as an island, as did the government of Bahrain in 1964. Qatar rejected this claim in 1965 and then sought international arbitration.[1] Nothing resulted, since neither nation was a member of the United Nations until 1971.[5] By 1986, Qatar declared several disputed areas, including Qit'at Jaradah, as military zones. As the two parties neared conflict, tensions were reduced under pressure from Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to resume the status quo ante. Saudi Arabia, through the Gulf Cooperation Council, attempted to negotiate a permanent agreement but was unsuccessful.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-10-06): 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 Qatar (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.
Claim: Qit'at Jaradah is a territory of Qatar (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 Qatar (Qit'at Jaradah, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-01-01): Qatar Vs Bahrain On Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions