Latest news with #Iraq-Kuwait
Iraq Business
4 days ago
- Politics
- Iraq Business
Judge Zidan statement on Khor Abdullah Dispute: IBN Explainer
By John Lee. The President of Iraq's Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), Dr Faiq Zidan, has issued a statement regarding the legal dispute about the Khor Adbullah waterway, between Iraq and Kuwait. Here are the main points: Background and Legal Framework: The Iraq-Kuwait navigation agreement for Khor Abdullah was signed in 2012 as a technical response to post-1990 invasion issues. Iraq ratified it through Law No. 42 of 2013 using a simple majority vote, and it became internationally binding under the UN framework. Initial Court Decision (2014): The Federal Supreme Court initially upheld the treaty's constitutionality in 2014, distinguishing between laws governing treaty ratification processes (requiring two-thirds majority) and laws ratifying specific treaties (requiring simple majority). This decision achieved res judicata status, providing legal finality and protection from future appeals. Controversial Reversal (2023): In September 2023, the same court reversed its 2014 decision, declaring the ratification law unconstitutional and requiring a two-thirds majority. The court justified this reversal using Article 45 of its internal rules, claiming "constitutional and public interest" grounds. Systemic Legal Consequences: Dr. Zidan argues this reversal creates catastrophic implications: it would retroactively invalidate over 400 international agreements Iraq ratified by simple majority over two decades, potentially dismantling Iraq's entire international treaty framework and creating international liability. Constitutional and Procedural Violations: The statement contends the court exceeded its authority by: Using internal regulations to expand judicial powers beyond statutory law Violating the principle of res judicata by annulling a final judgment Acting without proper constitutional authorization for such reversals Creating legislative vacuum and diplomatic instability Legal Assessment: Dr. Zidan concludes that the 2014 decision was constitutionally sound and internationally compliant, while the 2023 reversal lacked proper legal grounding and generated harmful legal and diplomatic consequences for Iraq. Click here to read the full statement in Arabic. The full text of the statement in English, according to the SJC website, is shown below: The Waves of Khor Abdullah Between Two Contradictory Decisions The agreement regulating navigation in Khor Abdullah, signed on April 29, 2012, between the Republic of Iraq and the State of Kuwait, represents a technical and administrative response to the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and the subsequent border demarcation under UN Security Council Resolution No. 833 of 1993. Article Six of the agreement clearly states that it "does not affect the borders between the two parties in Khor Abdullah as determined by Security Council Resolution No. 833 of 1993." The Iraqi Council of Ministers approved the draft ratification law on November 12, 2012. It was then passed by the Iraqi Parliament by a simple majority under Law No. 42 of 2013 and published in the Iraqi Official Gazette, issue No. 4299, dated November 25, 2013. The ratification documents were deposited with the United Nations, and a copy was sent to the International Maritime Organization. Consequently, the agreement entered into force and became binding under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, a fundamental norm in international law meaning "agreements must be respected." At the same time, ratification procedures were completed in the Kuwaiti National Assembly. When the constitutionality of the ratification law was appealed, the Federal Supreme Court issued Decision No. 21/Federal/2014 on December 18, 2014. It distinguished between the law governing the treaty ratification process - which requires a two-thirds majority per Article 61/Fourth of the Constitution - and the law ratifying a specific treaty, which only requires a simple majority under Article 59/Second. The court rejected the case due to a lack of constitutional or legal basis, affirming the treaty's domestic legitimacy and protecting it from future appeals. The ruling thus acquired the force of res judicata (final judgment) under Article 105 of the Evidence Law, which gives binding force to final rulings so long as the parties, subject matter, and cause remain unchanged. This legal position remained stable until the Federal Supreme Court heard the consolidated cases No. 105 and 194/Federal/2023 on September 4, 2023. The court ruled Law No. 42 of 2013 unconstitutional, reversing its previous decision (No. 21/Federal/2014), on the basis that a two-thirds majority vote is required and citing Article 45 of its internal rules, which permits reversal "whenever constitutional and public interest require." If the two-thirds majority condition adopted in the 2023 decision is applied retroactively, it would automatically invalidate more than 400 international agreements previously ratified by simple majority, rendering all of them void due to failure to meet the new quorum. This would, in effect, dismantle the entire framework of international agreements Iraq has concluded over the past two decades. Furthermore, the decision undermines the legal stability of treaty-based arrangements deposited with the United Nations, potentially triggering international liability for Iraq. In Iraqi legislative practice, judicial annulment is an exceptionally regulated measure. Article 13(First/1) of the Judicial Organization Law limits this power to the General Authority of the Federal Court of Cassation - not to any other court - and imposes strict conditions: the annulment must concern an abstract legal principle, not a final ruling; it must be referred by one of the cassation panels; and it must be justified with an explanatory decision showing urgent need, without affecting legal positions or acquired rights. These restrictions safeguard legal certainty and uphold the principle of finality enshrined in Article 105 of the Evidence Law, preventing any judicial authority from annuling conclusive rulings under the pretext of reform or development. Although neither the Constitution nor the Law of the Federal Supreme Court grants it the power of reversal, the court added Article 45 to its internal regulations, stating that it may annul a previous principle... whenever required by constitutional or public interest." This inclusion goes beyond the procedural nature of internal regulations and violates the principle of legal hierarchy, since internal rules rank below statutory law and cannot expand judicial powers. Even more troubling is that the court, in its September 4, 2023, decision, did not simply reverse a principle, but annulled its own final 2014 ruling regarding the Khor Abdullah agreement - labeling this annulment as a reversal, although Article 45 states overruling pertains to "principles," not "judgments." In doing so, the court violated the principle of res judicata and created a legislative vacuum and diplomatic instability, as the annulled ruling had underpinned a treaty deposited with the United Nations. Accordingly, any so-called " annulment" that does not meet these strict conditions - mainly if it targets a final judgment or is issued by an unauthorized body - constitutes a legal nullity and inflicts direct harm on the rule of law and public trust in the judiciary. From this trajectory, it becomes evident that the 2014 decision aligned with constitutional provisions and international legal norms, achieving legal certainty domestically and internationally. In contrast, the 2023 decision lacked constitutional and legal grounding, and generated significant legal and international repercussions. Faiq Zidan July 23, 2025
Shafaq News
7 days ago
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Iraq's top judge warns treaty chaos after Khor Abdullah ruling
Shafaq News – Baghdad Iraq's top judicial authority warned on Wednesday that the Federal Supreme Court's decision to invalidate a 2013 law endorsing the maritime border agreement with Kuwait could unravel hundreds of international treaties ratified over the past two decades. Chief Justice Faiq Zidan, head of the Supreme Judicial Council, issued a sharply worded article titled 'The Waves of Khor Abdullah Between Two Contradictory Rulings,' criticizing the Federal Court's reversal of its 2014 ruling on the Khor Abdullah agreement. In September 2023, the Federal Court ruled the law ratifying the agreement unconstitutional, citing the need for a two-thirds parliamentary majority—an interpretation that differs from its earlier stance requiring only a simple majority. That shift, Zidan warned, could retroactively invalidate more than 400 international treaties approved under the previous standard. 'If the two-thirds requirement is adopted as a precedent, then every treaty ratified by a simple majority becomes null, dismantling Iraq's entire international legal framework built over the past 20 years,' Zidan wrote. The chief justice stressed that the ruling jeopardizes Iraq's legal credibility, particularly as the Khor Abdullah agreement is already lodged with the United Nations. 'The decision undermines the legal stability of international commitments and could expose Iraq to potential liabilities,' he warned. Zidan also questioned the Federal Court's authority to reverse its own final ruling. He noted that while Iraq's legal system allows for 'judicial reversals' in rare cases, these are strictly limited to abstract legal principles—not binding judgments—and must follow rigorous procedures handled only by the General Assembly of the Federal Court of Cassation. 'The Federal Court granted itself an extraordinary power through Article 45 of its internal bylaw, allowing it to reverse previous principles if public interest demands. However, internal regulations cannot override constitutional or legislative authority,' he argued. Moreover, Zidan said the court misapplied that internal rule by revoking an entire ruling—rather than a legal principle—as its 2023 decision invalidated the 2014 judgment that had recognized the agreement's constitutionality. 'This is a legal overreach,' Zidan wrote. 'By annulling a final decision, the court violated the doctrine of res judicata and generated a legislative vacuum and diplomatic confusion.' The Khor Abdullah dispute has already strained Iraq-Kuwait relations. But Zidan's article expands the scope of concern. 'The 2014 ruling was aligned with constitutional provisions and international law, providing legal certainty both domestically and globally,' Zidan concluded. 'In contrast, the 2023 ruling lacks a constitutional basis and poses significant legal and diplomatic consequences.'
Shafaq News
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Iraq's judiciary shaken: Judges' resignation threatens elections
Shafaq News/ Iraq's judiciary is facing paralysis after the mass resignation of Federal Supreme Court judges deepened a constitutional crisis tied to the annulment of the Khor Abdullah maritime agreement with Kuwait—threatening the country's ability to certify elections and uphold legal continuity. The crisis erupted after nine judges, including all six permanent members, stepped down in protest over what insiders described as mounting political interference, casting doubt over the November 11 parliamentary elections, which cannot proceed without the court's formal ratification of results. 'The judiciary's ability to function is now in question,' a senior judicial official told Shafaq News, warning of broader repercussions across Iraq's legal and constitutional systems. Other insiders cited dissatisfaction with court administration as a contributing factor, further complicating efforts to stabilize the institution. Parliamentarian Amer Abduljabbar, head of the Al-Faw Zakho Gathering, criticized the government's role in the standoff, warning of external interference in the appeals submitted by the presidency and cabinet to reverse the court's ruling. 'It is deeply troubling that the President and Prime Minister are contesting a ruling issued by the court—not Parliament—despite their constitutional responsibilities,' Abduljabbar said, adding that 96 lawmakers have signed a petition urging the executive to withdraw its challenge. He further accused Kuwait of orchestrating diplomatic pressure through the Gulf Cooperation Council and Russia to undermine the decision. 'The timing and coordination raise serious concerns about foreign influence,' he noted. Basra-based organizations, including maritime unions and tribal leaders, issued a joint statement backing the judiciary. 'We reject any attempt to compromise Iraq's sovereignty over Khor Abdullah. The court must stand firm and fulfill its constitutional mandate,' the statement read. The Federal Supreme Court had ruled on September 4, 2023, that Law No. 42 of 2013—ratifying the Iraq-Kuwait maritime agreement—was unconstitutional for failing to secure a two-thirds parliamentary majority, as required under Article 61/4 of the Iraqi constitution. While the presidency and cabinet maintain that the agreement merely organized maritime navigation and did not alter borders, legal experts argue the ruling reinforced Iraq's jurisdiction beyond border marker 162 and reaffirmed the need for proper legislative procedures.
Arab Times
03-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab Times
Single GCC Tourist Visa by the End of This Year
KUWAIT CITY, Jun 3: The longstanding Iraq-Kuwait border dispute returned to the spotlight during a meeting of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers, as the Council reiterated calls for Iraq to resolve key pending issues and respect international agreements. GCC Secretary-General Jassim Al-Budaiwi expressed optimism that a unified Gulf visa system could be finalized before the end of the year. However, much of the diplomatic focus centered on Iraq, with Kuwait's Foreign Minister and current chairman of the GCC Ministerial Council, Abdullah Al-Yahya, calling for tangible progress from Baghdad on the unresolved files of prisoners, missing persons, and seized Kuwaiti property. Speaking to the press following the ministerial session, Al-Yahya underscored the need for continued UN Security Council oversight, including the appointment of a senior coordinator to carry forward efforts following the expiration of the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI). 'The Council reaffirmed Iraq's obligation to respect Kuwait's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and maritime borders under international resolutions,' Al-Yahya said. He noted the Council's firm rejection of any violation of Kuwaiti territory, including land, islands, highlands, and maritime areas. He further emphasized Kuwait's commitment to the outcomes of the 47th extraordinary meeting of the GCC Ministerial Council, held on May 6, particularly concerning maritime border demarcation beyond Marker 162. Al-Yahya urged Iraq to honor existing agreements on maritime navigation in the strategically vital Khor Abdullah waterway. Kuwaiti-Syrian Relations Also in Focus In a separate diplomatic development, Foreign Minister Al-Yahya confirmed that recent talks between Syrian President Ahmad Al-Shara and His Highness the Amir Sheikh Meshaal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah covered a wide range of bilateral and regional issues. The Amir reaffirmed Kuwait's support for Syria's sovereignty and territorial unity, Al-Yahya noted, adding that President Al-Shara met with members of the Syrian expatriate community and private sector representatives during his visit. Looking ahead, the foreign minister said additional meetings are expected between Syrian and Kuwaiti counterparts, both at the governmental and civil society levels. Regarding the potential reopening of Kuwait's embassy in Damascus, Al-Yahya stated that the process is underway, though the timeline is tied to Kuwait's internal administrative procedures and not related to any political considerations with Syria. He confirmed that the matter is progressing and expected to be finalized soon.
Arab Times
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Arab Times
To the land of multiple flags ... Iraq will return to its senses ... We are patiently waiting
ANYONE observing the Iraqi media will notice the frequent media campaigns launched by mouthpieces that are known for their anti-Kuwaiti sentiments. The noise ebbs and flows from time to time, depending on the interests of those running them. At times, these campaigns are nothing more than baseless noise, while at other times, they aim to create false heroes through social media. Regardless of the motive, these campaigns harm Iraq and its people in the end. It is well known that since 2003, Iraq has become a land of multiple flags, each with its own financial and political sponsors. None of these flags truly represent Iraq. They are reminiscent of the Baath Party's attempt to monopolize the representation of Iraqis during its rule. Saddam Hussein was the dictator who dragged this once-great country through one hell after another. Then came the American occupation, leaving Iraqis vulnerable to the fangs of two monsters: terrorism and sectarian gangs. Despite this, there are still those who seek to turn back the clock. So, we say: If Saddam Hussein's reckless adventure, represented by the brutal invasion of Kuwait, has revived among some weak-minded individuals the desire to adopt the King Ghazi and later Abdul Karim Qasim's slogan that Kuwait was part of Iraq, then these people are only harming their own country. They should have realized on February 26, 1991, that adopting such an assertion brought nothing but great misfortune upon their people. I would like to assure those who still dream of realizing this illusion that they can never nullify international agreements, UN resolutions, or the Iraq-Kuwait border demarcation treaty. They seem unaware that all of these agreements fall under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, making them impossible to undo. These individuals should understand that the eternal relationship between the Kuwaiti and Iraqi peoples is far greater than the noise of their media campaigns. Kuwait has stood by Iraq at every stage, both government and people, even during the most difficult moments. Therefore, these voices will not harm Kuwait. It is true that the Iraqi government cannot curb the unbridled freedom of the media. I also emphasize that the official Iraqi decision has nothing to do with what is circulating on social media and in the media. However, at the same time, I affirm that no one can change a single letter in these relevant agreements. These individuals do not have the power to build a wall between Kuwait and Iraq, similar to what the United States did with Mexico or Israel with the West Bank and the Lebanese border. In Kuwait, we understand that these media outlets are controlled by those outside Iraq's borders who seek to achieve their dubious interests at the expense of the Iraqi people. Media propaganda will not alter the facts on the ground and will have no impact on Kuwait. The geographical reality will remain unchanged. This is what both the Iraqi presidents and prime ministers relied on in their appeal of the Federal Supreme Court's ruling, as they recognize that good neighborliness is one of the foundational principles of the new Iraqi state. Therefore, any attempt to revive the border issue between Iraq and Kuwait is a suspicious act that conceals malicious intentions, which certainly do not represent the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, and with great bitterness, we must acknowledge that some are trying to exploit this for regional interests aimed at undermining Iraqi national security, attempting to disrupt relations between Kuwait and Iraq, and divert attention from a matter that has been settled for a long time. Here, we must emphasize once again: The failed experience of the 'Qasr Al-Zohour' radio station, the propaganda of Abdul Karim Qasim, Saddam's Fedayeen, or the so-called Al-Quds Army, will not be repeated. So, we say, be patient, and may God be the most helpful. Anyone familiar with the nature of relations between Kuwait and Iraq during King Faisal's reign will understand the significance of Kuwait's immediate assistance to Iraq after its liberation from Saddam's Ba'athist regime. They will also realize that those beautiful cities on the Iraqi border near Kuwait were built with Kuwaiti funds to stimulate trade between the two countries. Moreover, they will realize that Mubarak Al-Kabeer Port and Al-Faw Port complement each other, and that Kuwait aims to transform the northern region into an integrated economic zone, including factories, commercial, and service institutions that will benefit Iraq more than Kuwait. On this basis, the late Amir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, along with all Kuwaiti rulers, sought to build strong relations based on cooperation between the two countries and peoples. Kuwait believes that stable economic security and extensive trade exchange are the paths to prosperity, not the propaganda and nonsense spread by those with sick minds or those who raise sectarian banners. Therefore, it is not in anyone's interest to allow these suspicious voices to continuously stir up uproar with justifications that have no connection to the truth. The danger of these mouthpieces lies in their ability to drown out the voice of reason and create openings for those with regional agendas to disturb the cordial relations between the two countries and peoples, while also sowing discord among Iraqis themselves. The rational people in these media arms, if they exist, should learn from the experiences in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. I urge them to always remember how Iran's boasting about occupying four Arab capitals ended. Soon, the people of Iraq will ask, 'Where have these mouthpieces gone?' I have avoided discussing this issue in the past and endured the pain of silence. But the uproar has reached a point where remaining silent is no longer an option. Perhaps, we will find rational voices who will tell these individuals 'Enough is enough'. They must wake up from their intoxication of stupidity and realize that the true loser from their actions is Iraq, not Kuwait. I hope they carefully read the memoirs of the Iraqi President and Prime Minister, as they encapsulate wisdom spoken at the right time and place.
