The Legal Consequences of The Unconstitutionality of the KHOR ABDULLAH Convention

Abstract

The Khor Abdullah Convention is a border political Convention between Iraq and Kuwait that came to regulate maritime navigation, and was among many concessions made by Iraq to get out of the sanctions of Chapter Seven of the United Nations Charter.

The Convention was concluded between Iraq and Kuwait in 2013, and the Convention stipulated in its terms that terminating or amending the Convention could not be done except by Convention of both parties. However, as a result of one of the appeals submitted before the Federal Supreme Court regarding the Convention’s ratification law, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the ratification law, which is Law No. 42 of 2013, was unconstitutional..

Therefore, the idea of the research came to address the issue of the subjection of international treaties and Conventions to the oversight of the constitutional judiciary, as this oversight is considered one of the most important guarantees for achieving the principle of legality and the principle of the supremacy of the constitution, especially since the issue of conflict between the provisions of international law and internal law is something that is likely to happen due to the impossibility of any country living in isolation from the international community.

The research problem may be embodied in the invalidation of the law ratifying the Convention by the Federal Supreme Court. What is the impact of this on the two parties to the Convention? What is the solution if the Convention is not annulled by the Kuwaiti side?