22 - Freedom of Navigation through International Waterways in the Region

Summary

The legal discourse as to Israel’s right to use the Suez Canal centered on the issue of belligerency. Egypt argued that the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Israel did not end the state of war and, hence, Egypt was entitled to take acts of belligerency not prohibited by the Armistice Agreement. According to Egypt, the 1888 Constantinople Agreement allowed Egypt to take steps to defend the Canal, and prohibiting Israeli shipping was such a step. Israel argued that the Armistice Agreement prohibited all acts of belligerency. The UN Security Council supported Israel’s position. The Egypt Israel Peace Treaty has resolved the issue of Israel navigation through the Canal. The configuration of the Strait of Tiran differs from most other international straits, in that it connects high seas with an enclosed gulf. The Egyptians claimed that they had belligerent rights against Israeli shipping in Egyptian territorial waters. The issue has been finally settled in the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty that stipulates that the Gulf of Aqaba and the Strait of Tiran are “International waterways to be open to all nations for unimpeded and non-suspendable freedom of navigation.”