ICASDVQatar v.

Bahrain Bahrain foreign minister’s claim that he did not intend to enter into an
ICJ 1994 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
Facts: 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 thoughtFASFASFAS
Qatar brought suit against Bahrain in the International Court of The ICJ found that both the 1987 and 1990 exchanges and their resulting
Justice (ICJ) to for Qatar and Bahrain to submit to the ICJ the whole of their documents constituted international agreements. Thus, the ICJ concluded
dispute involving sovereignty over certain islands, sovereign rights over that it had jurisdiction to hear the sovereignty and boundary disputes
certain sholas, and the delimitation of a maritime boundary between Qatar and Bahrain.
bFASFASFAStween the two States. Though FDASDASDthe committee met
several time, it failed to produce an agreement on the specific terms for
FASFASFASFVASDG against Bahrain in the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
submitting the dispute to the Court. However, Bahrain contended that the
two documents did not constitute international agreements, and that Qatar to for Qatar and Bahrain to submit to the ICJ the whole of their dispute
did not have a jurisdictional basis for bringing a unilateral suit in the ICJ. involving sovereignty over certain islands, sovereign rights over certain
sholas, and the delimitation of a maritime boundary bFASFASFAStween the
Issue. Whether or not the exchange of notes between the two states (Qatar two States. Though FDASDASDthe committee met several time, it failed to
and Bahrain) was considered an international agreement.FASFASD produce an agreement on the specific terms for submitting the dispute to the
Court. However, Bahrain contended that the two documents did not
Held: constitute international agreements, and that Qatar did not have a
jurisdictional basis for bringing a unilateral suit against Bahrain in the
Yes. Article 2, p.1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, International Court of Justice (ICJ) to for Qatar and Bahrain to submit to the
defined Treaty as an international agreement concluded between States in ICJ the whole of their dispute involving sovereignty over certain islands,
written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single sovereign rights over certain sholas, and the delimitation of a maritime
instrument or in two or more relatFASFASFASed instruments and whatever its
boundary bFASFASFAStween the two States. Though FDASDASDthe
particular designation.
committee met several time, it failed to produce an agreement on the specific
terms for submitting the dispute to the Court. However, Bahrain contended
An international agreement creating rights and obligations can be constituted
that the two documents did not constitute international agreements, and that
by the signatories to the minutes of meetings and letters exchanged. Though
Bahrain argued that the Minutes weFASFASFASre only a record of negotiation Qatar did not have a jurisdictional basis for bringing a unilateral suit against
and could not serve as a basis for the I.C.J.’s jurisdiction, both parties agreed Bahrain in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to for Qatar and Bahrain to
that the letters constituted an international agreement with binding force. submit to the ICJ the whole of their dispute involving sovereignty over certain
islands, sovereign rights over certain sholas, and the delimitation of a
International agreements do not take a single form under the Vienna maritime boundary bFASFASFAStween the two States. Though FDASDASDthe
Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the Court has enforced this rule in the committee met several time, it failed to produce an agreement on the specific
past. In this case, the Minutes not only contain the record of the meetings terms for submitting the dispute to the Court. However, Bahrain contended
between the parties, it also contained the reaffirmation of obligations
that the two documents did not constitute international agreements, and that
previously agreed to an agreeFASFASFASFment to allow the King of Saudi
Arabia to try to find a solution to the dispute during a six-month period, and Qatar did not have a jurisdictional basis for bringing a unilateral suit against
indicated the possibility of the involvement of the I.C.J. The Minutes Bahrain in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to for Qatar and Bahrain to
stipulated commitments to which the parties agreed, thereby creating rights submit to the ICJ the whole of their dispute involving sovereignty over certain
and obligations in international law. This is the basis therefore of the islands, sovereign rights over certain sholas, and the delimitation of a
existence of international agreement. maritime boundary bFASFASFAStween the two States. Though FDASDASDthe
committee met several time, it failed to produce an agreement on the specific
Further, there is no doubt that language plays a vital role in influencing a terms for submitting the dispute to the Court. However, Bahrain contended
court’s decision as to whether an agreement has been entered into and in this that the two documents did not constitute international agreements, and that
particular case, the language was the main focus of the I.C.J and it was the
Qatar did not have a jurisdictional basis for bringing a unilateral suit against
contents of the MinFASFASFutes that persuaded the I.C.J. to reject the
Bahrain in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to for Qatar and Bahrain to
submit to the ICJ the whole of their dispute involving sovereignty over certain
islands, sovereign rights over certain sholas, and the delimitation of a
maritime boundary bFASFASFAStween the two States. Though FDASDASDthe
committee met several time, it failed to produce an agreement on the specific
terms for submitting the dispute to the Court. However, Bahrain contended
that the two documents did not constitute international agreements, and that
Qatar did not have a jurisdictional basis for bringing a unilateral suit against
Bahrain in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to for Qatar and Bahrain to
submit to the ICJ the whole of their dispute involving sovereignty over certain
islands, sovereign rights over certain sholas, and the delimitation of a
maritime boundary bFASFASFAStween the two States. Though FDASDASDthe
committee met several time, it failed to produce an agreement on the specific
terms for submitting the dispute to the Court. However, Bahrain contended
that the two documents did not constitute international agreements, and that
Qatar did not have a jurisdictional basis for bringing a unilateral suit against
Bahrain in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to for Qatar and Bahrain to
submit to the ICJ the whole of their dispute involving sovereignty over certain
islands, sovereign rights over certain sholas, and the delimitation of a
maritime boundary bFASFASFAStween the two States. Though FDASDASDthe
committee met several time, it failed to produce an agreement on the specific
terms for submitting the dispute to the Court. However, Bahrain contended
that the two documents did not constitute international agreements, and that
Qatar did not have a jurisdictional basis for bringing a unilateral suit FQEF
FASFASFASFVASDGFQEF FASFASFASFVASDGFQEF