Iraq’s top judge slams Federal Court ‘fiasco’ on Khor Abdullah; calls it ‘legally unfounded’
… says 2014 ruling was constitutionally sound and consistent with both Iraqi legal standards and international norms.
Iraq’s top judicial authority has raised serious concerns over the legal and constitutional implications of the Iraqi Federal Court’s September 2023 decision to invalidate the 2012 Khor Abdullah maritime agreement with Kuwait.
Faiq Zidane, head of the Supreme Judicial Council, emphasized that the court’s ruling — based on the claim that the agreement lacked the required two-thirds majority during ratification — was unfounded both legally and constitutionally. He asserted that the agreement remains valid and that the recent decision poses broader threats to Iraq’s international legal commitments.
The dispute stems from the Federal Court’s reinterpretation of ratification requirements, claiming that all international agreements must pass with a two-thirds parliamentary majority.
Zidane warned that such an interpretation retroactively nullifies over 400 international treaties that Iraq has signed over the past two decades, most of which were ratified by a simple majority.
This, he argued, would “effectively destroy the system of international agreements concluded by Iraq,” destabilizing its legal framework and exposing the country to potential international liability — especially since the Khor Abdullah agreement is already deposited with the United Nations.
In a detailed opinion piece published in Asharq Al-Awsat under the title “The Waves of Khor Abdullah Between Two Contradictory Decisions,” Zidane referenced a 2014 ruling by the same Federal Court. In that case — Decision No. (21/Federal/2014) — the court had clearly distinguished between general treaty ratification procedures, which require a two-thirds majority under Article 61(Fourth) of the Constitution, and the ratification of specific agreements, which need only a simple majority under Article 59(Second).
That ruling dismissed any legal challenge to the agreement, granting it the power of res judicata under Article 105 of the Evidence Law, meaning it could not be challenged again as long as the core elements remained unchanged.
Zidane criticized the 2023 reversal for not merely modifying a legal principle, but overturning a final judgment, a move he argued violates the principle of legal finality.
He pointed out that Article 45 of the Federal Court Law allows for the reversal of a principle, not a ruling. By reversing a finalized judgment, Zidane argued, the court exceeded its jurisdiction and created a legislative and diplomatic vacuum. He warned that such judicial overreach undermines the rule of law and disrupts Iraq’s obligations under international law, particularly treaties registered with the United Nations.
In conclusion, Zidane reaffirmed that the 2014 ruling was constitutionally sound and consistent with both Iraqi legal standards and international norms.
He characterized the 2023 decision as lacking legal justification, noting that it has triggered considerable legal uncertainty and could damage Iraq’s credibility in international diplomacy. The matter now lies with the Iraqi Parliament, to which the case was referred by the country’s three presidencies on July 8, amid growing concerns over its broader implications.
