Latest news with #LawNo.42
Iraq Business
6 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
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Shafaq News
About 200 Iraqi MPs push to scrap ‘humiliating' Kuwait Agreement
Shafaq News – Baghdad A majority of Iraqi lawmakers have backed the Federal Supreme Court's decision to annul the Khor Abdullah maritime agreement with Kuwait, with calls mounting for nationwide protests on Friday in support of the ruling. MP Amer Abdul-Jabbar told Shafaq News that 194 out of 329 parliamentarians signed a petition submitted to the head of the Federal Court on Thursday, voicing full support for the court's September 2023 ruling that voided Iraq's 2013 ratification of the agreement. He urged Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani to implement the decision and called on Iraqis to stage peaceful demonstrations across the country. 'We demand the government comply with the court's ruling,' Abdul-Jabbar stated, stressing the need for a firm national stance. A copy of the petition, obtained by Shafaq News, described the agreement as 'humiliating' and urged the government to deposit the ruling with the United Nations and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). It also called for reopening negotiations with Kuwait through a team of Iraqi technical experts—free from political influence—with talks to be held in Baghdad or a neutral third country. This latest appeal follows a previous initiative signed by more than 100 lawmakers rejecting the agreement, which they labeled as degrading to the country. The Khor Abdullah agreement, signed in 2012 and ratified by Iraq's Parliament under Law No. 42 in 2013, was designed to regulate maritime navigation between Iraq and Kuwait. It followed the post-war border demarcation outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 833 (1993). Article 6 of the agreement confirmed it did not alter the existing boundaries. The Federal Court struck down the agreement on constitutional grounds, ruling that its ratification violated Article 61/4 of the Iraqi Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority for approving international treaties. The decision triggered widespread political and legal responses, including judicial resignations. On Wednesday, Iraq's top judicial authority warned that the verdict could have broader implications, potentially affecting hundreds of international treaties ratified by Iraq over the past two decades.
Shafaq News
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Mass judicial exodus threatens Iraqi elections
Shafaq News/ Iraq is heading toward a constitutional crisis just months before parliamentary elections on November 11, 2025, as the mass resignation of Federal Supreme Court judges threatens to derail the electoral timeline, a top legal expert warned on Friday. Hazem al-Rudaini, Deputy Head of Iraq's Strategic Center for Human Rights (SCHR), cautioned that the resignations jeopardize the legal foundation of the election. 'It is constitutionally impossible to hold parliamentary elections without the Federal Supreme Court,' he said, pointing to Article 93(7) of the 2005 Constitution, which grants the Court sole authority to ratify election results. Nine judges, including six principal members, resigned Thursday in protest over political pressure, reportedly linked to the Court's 2023 ruling that annulled the 2013 Khor Abdullah maritime agreement with Kuwait. A judicial source told Shafaq News that the fallout from that decision triggered their departure. Members of the Parliamentary Legal Committee expressed alarm. MP Mohammed al-Khafaji described the resignations as 'deeply troubling,' while MP Raed al-Maliki accused political factions of hijacking the judiciary. 'The government and certain parties want to turn the Federal Court into a tool, all while claiming to protect national sovereignty,' he asserted. Al-Maliki criticized the broader 'failure' of Iraq's Shiite leadership to insulate institutions from political interference, warning that the situation sets a dangerous precedent and confirming that parliament is holding emergency consultations to safeguard judicial independence. The crisis stems from a September 2023 ruling in which the Court nullified Law No. 42 of 2013, invalidating Iraq's navigation agreement with Kuwait over the Khor Abdullah waterway. The Court ruled the law unconstitutional, claiming it lacked the two-thirds majority required under Article 61(4). In April 2025, Iraq's president and prime minister appealed the ruling, arguing the agreement covered maritime coordination—not border demarcation—and should fall under Iraq's obligations under the 1966 Vienna Convention.
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.
Shafaq News
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Khor Abdullah ruling: Mass resignations reported at Iraq's top court
Shafaq News/ Six members of Iraq's Federal Supreme Court submitted their resignations on Thursday in protest over alleged government pressure related to the court's ruling on the Khor Abdullah maritime agreement with Kuwait. A source from within the court told Shafaq News Agency that the resignations were linked to political interference surrounding the case. The dispute stems from a September 2023 ruling in which the Federal Supreme Court annulled Law No. 42 of 2013, which ratified the agreement between Iraq and Kuwait on regulating navigation in Khor Abdullah. The court cited a constitutional violation, stating the law was passed without the required two-thirds majority in parliament, as outlined in Article 61(4) of the Iraqi Constitution. In April 2025, Iraq's president and prime minister each filed appeals requesting the court to reverse its decision, arguing the agreement was related to navigation, not border demarcation, and forms part of Iraq's international commitments under the 1966 Vienna Convention.
