This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the case Qatar v. United Arab Emirates, as presented before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on 27th August 2019. The case centered around allegations of racial discrimination against Qatar by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The primary objective of this article is to critically examine the CERD's decision and its implications for international human rights law.

The article begins by outlining the key factual and legal aspects of the case, highlighting the main arguments presented by both parties. It then delves into a detailed analysis of the CERD's decision, focusing on the committee's interpretation and application of relevant international legal principles, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The analysis critically evaluates the CERD's findings and reasoning, examining the committee's assessment of the evidence and the legal arguments put forth by the parties involved. The article also explores the potential impact of the decision on the promotion and protection of human rights, particularly in the context of racial discrimination, within the region and beyond.

In conclusion, this article provides a thorough analysis of the Qatar v. United Arab Emirates case before the CERD, shedding light on the committee's decision and its implications. By critically examining the legal reasoning employed by the committee, this article contributes to the ongoing dialogue on the interpretation and application of international human rights law, with a particular focus on combatting racial discrimination.

Qatar V. United Arab Emirates
Committee On The Elimination Of Racial Discrimination
27 August 2019, (2019) 69 E.H.R.R. Se14

Introduction
The Qatar v United Arab Emirates case before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) is a significant legal dispute that delves into the issue of racial discrimination. The case was brought before CERD in 2018 by the State of Qatar against the United Arab Emirates, alleging that the latter had violated the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) through a series of discriminatory measures against Qatari nationals.

The case raises important questions about the role of international law in combating racial discrimination and highlights the need for greater awareness and action to promote racial equality and justice

Fact Of The Case

• The severance of diplomatic and economic ties between Qatar and the UAE, as well as other Gulf countries, began in June 2017 when the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt accused Qatar of supporting terrorism and interfering in their internal affairs. They imposed a blockade on Qatar and cut off transport links, expelling Qatari citizens and closing their airspace to Qatari planes.
• On June 5, 2017, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) prohibited, inter alia, entry by nationals of Qatar and gave Qatari residents and visitors fourteen days to leave the country.
• Qatar denied the accusations and said the measures taken by the other countries were aimed at undermining its sovereignty and independence. The dispute has continued for years, with both sides accusing each other of various wrongdoings.
• In March 2018, Qatar filed a complaint with the CERD, alleging that the measures taken by the UAE constituted racial discrimination against Qatar and its citizens.
• The CERD is a United Nations treaty body that monitors compliance with the ICERD, which is a treaty that aims to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. The UAE and Qatar are both parties to the treaty.
• Qatar argued that the measures taken by the UAE against its citizens were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated their human rights, including the right to freedom of movement, education, and healthcare. Qatar also alleged that the UAE had engaged in a campaign of hate speech and incitement against Qatar and its citizens
• The UAE argued that the measures taken were necessary to protect its national security and counter terrorism, and that Qatar had failed to fulfill its obligations under the ICERD. The UAE also argued that the CERD did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, as the dispute was a political one and not related to racial discrimination.
• The CERD held a hearing in May 2019 and issued its decision in August 2019. The committee found that the measures taken by the UAE against Qatar and its citizens constituted discrimination on the basis of nationality and amounted to racial discrimination under the ICERD.
• The UAE claimed that its actions were a reaction to Qatar's failure to fulfill its commitment to permit the return of diplomats from the Gulf Cooperation Council to Doha, as well as Qatar's alleged support of terrorism. In 2018, Qatar initiated legal proceedings against the UAE at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the Court. Qatar accused the UAE of violating the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) or the Convention.
• The case presented challenging issues regarding the interpretation of treaties in a delicate domain of law and politics, specifically the prohibition against racial discrimination. The ICJ's preliminary objections ruling delved into the differentiation between discrimination based on nationality and discrimination based on national origin. Additionally, it examined whether the measures implemented by the UAE could be considered de facto discrimination.

Issue
Qatar made three main claims

1. The measures referred to as the "expulsion order" and "travel bans" explicitly singled out Qatari nationals, indicating racial discrimination against Qataris based on their current nationality.
2. The UAE implemented discriminatory measures specifically targeting certain Qatari media corporations.
3. Qatar claimed that the UAE indirectly discriminated against individuals of Qatari national origin through these measures.

Rule
The rule applied in the case of Qatar v. United Arab Emirates at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Both Qatar and the UAE are parties to this treaty, which aims to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and promote understanding among all races.

Qatar argued that the UAE had violated the ICERD by implementing a series of discriminatory measures against Qatari citizens, including expelling them from the UAE, banning them from entering the country, and preventing them from accessing their property and businesses. Qatar also claimed that the UAE had engaged in hate speech and incitement against Qatari citizens through its state-controlled media.

The ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and rejected the UAE's argument that the ICERD did not apply. The court ordered the UAE to take immediate steps to prevent any acts of racial discrimination against Qatari citizens, including those affected by the measures taken by the UAE.

Therefore, the ICERD was the primary rule applied in the case, and the ICJ interpreted and enforced the provisions of the treaty to determine the obligations of the UAE with respect to Qatar and Qatari citizens.

Application Of Rule
In the case, Qatar alleged that the UAE had violated the ICERD by expelling Qatari citizens from the UAE, banning them from entering the country, and preventing them from accessing their property and businesses. Qatar also claimed that the UAE had engaged in a campaign of hate speech and incitement against Qatari citizens through its state-controlled media.

The ICJ held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and that the ICERD was applicable. The Court found that the measures taken by the UAE against Qatari citizens were discriminatory and in violation of the ICERD. The Court ordered the UAE to take immediate steps to prevent any acts of racial discrimination against Qatari citizens, including those affected by the measures taken by the UAE.

Therefore, the application of the ICERD was crucial in determining the obligations of the UAE and protecting the rights of Qatari citizens in the case. The ICJ interpreted and enforced the provisions of the treaty to ensure compliance with the ICERD by the UAE.

Judgment
The case resulted in a majority decision of 11�6, but the division among judges from developing and developed countries could raise concerns about potential external influences on the Court's ruling. Differences in approaches to international law exist across regions of the world. With the increase in the number of judges from developing states in the majority, there has been a perception of reduced division between the North and South on the bench.

However, the Marshall Islands case in 2016 highlighted a split along political lines, which was determined solely by the president's casting vote. Most of the dissenting judges in that case were from developing countries. On the other hand, in the Chagos advisory opinion in 2019, the Court demonstrated less division, with a majority decision of 13�1 that mandated the United Kingdom to end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as swiftly as possible.

It is crucial for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to ensure that all legal cultures and perspectives on international law are represented and given a voice in cases involving globally controversial issues. Although the combination of the majority decision and various separate opinions indicates that all relevant viewpoints were considered in the present case, divisions that appear to align with political lines may pose a threat to the Court's credibility and legitimacy.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the case of Qatar v. United Arab Emirates before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) involved an application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Qatar alleged that the UAE had violated the ICERD by implementing discriminatory measures against Qatari citizens, including expelling them from the UAE, banning them from entering the country, and preventing them from accessing their property and businesses. Qatar also claimed that the UAE had engaged in hate speech and incitement against Qatari citizens through its state-controlled media.

The ICJ held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and that the ICERD was applicable. The Court found that the measures taken by the UAE against Qatari citizens were discriminatory and in violation of the ICERD. The Court ordered the UAE to take immediate steps to prevent any acts of racial discrimination against Qatari citizens, including those affected by the measures taken by the UAE.

The case demonstrates the importance of international human rights treaties, such as the ICERD, in protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring compliance with international legal standards. It also highlights the role of international courts, such as the ICJ, in interpreting and enforcing these treaties to promote justice and accountability.