Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:23:03.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intervention, 1956

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Quincy Wright
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The military interventions initiated by Israel, the United Kingdom, and France in Egypt and by the Soviet Union in Hungary, during October and November, 1956, have different historical backgrounds and different political purposes. They may have been politically connected with one another, and in any case they were connected by the fact that they occurred at the same time and were all dealt with by the United Nations. It is the purpose of this article to examine the legal justification for these interventions with only the minimum historical background necessary for that purpose. The criteria for aggression which the writer developed in the July, 1956, number of this Journal will be assumed and for their justification the reader is referred to that article.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 1957 , pp. 257 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 50 A.J.I.L. 514 ff. (1956).

2 Statement by Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld in Security Council, Oct. 30, 1956. U.N. Doc. S/P.V./748, p. 3.

3 U.N. Doc. S/3710; 35 Dept. of State Bulletin 750 (1956).

4 Egypt notified the Security Council on Oct. 30 that the ultimatum was handed to the Egyptian Ambassador in London at 4:30 p.m., Greenwich time, to expire Oct. 31, 6:30 a.m., Cairo time. U.N. Doc. S/3712.

5 35 Dept. of State Bulletin 744, 745 (1956).

6 France, Israel, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand opposed; Canada, South Africa, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal and Laos abstained. Ibid. 754.

7 Ibid. 793.

8 On Nov. 6 the Secretary General reported to the General Assembly British acceptance of his cease-fire request conditional upon acceptances by Egypt and Israel, which had already been received.

9 See statement by Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion in Knesset, Nov. 7, 1956, printed in New York Times Nov. 8. Lieutenant General Sir Hugh Stockton, Commander of Anglo-French land forces, estimated Egyptian losses of life at 125, but the British Government later admitted that the losses were much greater. The Egyptian Governor of Port Said placed Egyptian losses at 3,000 lives and $28,000,000 property damage, but impartial reports estimated 1,000 lives lost. See New York Times reports Nov. 11 and 25, 1956, and statement by Dr. Edith Summerskill in British House of Commons Jan. 26, 1957.

10 35 Dept. of State Bulletin 745, 746 (1956).

11 Free Europe Committee, The Revolt in Hungary, a Documentary Chronology of Events, based exclusively on Internal Broadcasts by Central and Provincial Radios, Oct. 23, 1956–Nov. 4, 1956 (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Statement of International Commission of Jurists, The Hague, Nov. 16, 1956.

12 35 Dept. of State Bulletin 763 (1956).

13 U.N. Doc. A/Res/393; 35 Dept. of State Bulletin 803 (1956). See also Resolution approved Dec. 4, 1956, ibid. 963.

14 See New York Times, press reports from Vienna, Nov. 11, 1956, and Jan. 20, 1957.

15 U.N. Doc. A/Res/424; 35 Dept. of State Bulletin 979 (1956).

16 Arts. 1, 12, 14, 16. Fitzgerald, Percy, The Great Canal at Suez (London, 1876)Google Scholar, Vol. 1, pp. 297 ff. This and other documents concerning the Canal are conveniently printed with notes in Hurewitz, J. C., Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East, A Documentary Record, 1935–1956, Vol. 1, pp. 146 ff. (Princeton, Van Nostrand, 1956)Google Scholar. See also U. S. Department of State, The Suez Canal Problem 4 ff. (Pub. 6392, October, 1956); and The Suez Canal, A Selection of Documents relating to the International Status of the Suez Canal and the position of the Suez Canal Company November 30, 1854–July 26, 1956 (London, Society of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 1956)Google Scholar.

17 The Treasury Minute concerning the Rothschild loan, Nov. 25, 1875, the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement for purchase of the Shares, Nov. 27, 1875, Disraeli’s defense of his action in the House of Commons, Feb. 21, 1876, are printed in Hurewitz, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 177 ff.

18 See Granville Circular, Jan. 3, 1883. Ibid. 197.

19 Great Britain, Parl. Papers, 1889, Com. No. 2, c. 5623; French text, 79 Brit. and For. State Papers (1887–88) 18 ff. The text printed in Hurewitz (op. oit., Vol. 1, p. 202) does not include the Preamble which, however, appears in the text published in the New York Times, Sept. 13, 1956, in 35 Dept. of State Bulletin 617 (1956), and in Department of State, The Suez Canal Problem 16 ff.; see also 3 A.J.I.L. Supp. 123 (1909).

20 Hurewitz, op. cit. 202; G. B. Treaty Series, No. 6 (1905), Cd. 2384; 1 A.J.I.L Supp. 6 (1907), 6 ibid. 26 (1912).

21 Hurewitz, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 4 ff., 100 ff.; see also 17 A.J.I.L. Supp. 30 (1923).

22 League of Nations, Report by Legal Sub-committee of the Coordination Committee, 1st sess., Oct. 11–19, 1935 (General, 1935–6), p. 10; 30 A.J.I.L. Supp. 48 (1936).

23 Hurewitz, ibid. 203 ff.; 31 A.J.I.L. Supp. 77 (1937).

24 G. B. Treaty Series, No. 67 (1955), Cmd. 9586; Hurewitz, ibid. 383 ff. See Selak, C. B. Jr., “The Suez Canal Base Agreement,” 49 A.J.I.L. 487 (1955)Google Scholar.

25 33 Dept. of State Bulletin 1050 (1955); 35 ibid. 188 (1956).

26 Law No. 285 of 1956; Department of State, The Suez Canal Problem 30 ff.

27 Address by Prime Minister Eden in House of Commons and by Foreign Minister Selwyn Lloyd in Security Council, Oct. 5, 1956. See also discussion in London Conference, August, 1956, Department of State, op. oit. 173, 153, 233.

28 Department of State, op. cit.

29 35 Dept. of State Bulletin 616 (1956). Compare Indian and U. S. proposals at London Conference, Aug. 20, 1956, Department of State, op. cit. 288 ff.

30 See 20 A.J.I.L. Supp. 65 (1926).

31 Wright, Quincy, “The Palestine Problem,” 41 Pol. Science Quarterly 405 (1926)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mandates under the League of Nations 204, 232, 239, 247, 564, 567, 600, 630 (University of Chicago Press, 1930); Hurewitz, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 103, 107, 218.

32 The vote was 20 to 21, with 13 abstentions. Among the principal Powers, the U. S. and the U.S.S.R. opposed submission, France favored it and the U. K. and China abstained. United Nations, Records of the 2nd Session of the General Assembly, Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question, Nov. 24, 1947, pp. 203, 300.

33 Resolution 181 (II), Nov. 29, 1947. Lie, Trygve, In the Cause of Peace 167 (New York, Macmillan Co., 1954)Google Scholar. The resolution “recommended” to the Members the “adoption and implementation” of the proposed plan, but requested that the “Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution,” and “called upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect.” It was adopted with 33 for, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. France, the U. S. and the U.S.S.R. were for, and the U.K. and China abstained. Records of the 2nd Session of the General Assembly, Plenary Meeting, Vol. 2, pp. 1311, 1424; Hurewitz, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 281 ff.

34 The U. S. representative (Austin) thought the Security Council could act to preserve the peace but was not authorized to enforce a political settlement and could not therefore enforce partition. 2 International Organization 307 (1949); Trygve Lie, op. cit. 167.

35 Text in Security Council, Official Records, 4th year, Spec. Supp. No. 3; Hurewitz, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 299 ff.

36 Resolution of Sept. 1, 1951 (Doc. S/2322); Lawyers Committee, The United Nations and the Egyptian Blockade of the Suez Canal (New York, 1953)Google Scholar; 25 Dept. of State Bulletin 479 (1951).

37 U.N. Doc. S/3575; 34 Dept. of State Bulletin 628 (1956). See statement of Israeli representative, Abba Eban, in Security Council, Oct. 30, 1956, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 749, pp. 8–18; Hurewitz, op. cit. 405 ff.

38 Charter, Art. 2, pars. 3, 4.

39 Harvard Research in International Law, “Rights and Duties of States in Case of Aggression,” Philip Jessup, Reporter, 33 A.J.I.L. Supp. 827 ff. (1939)Google Scholar.

40 U.N. Doc. A/1481, Nov. 4, 1950; 45 A.J.I.L. Supp. 1 (1951).

41 Wright, Q., “Changes in the Conception of War,” 18 A.J.I.L. 757 ff. (1924)Google Scholar; “The Outlawry of War,” 19 ibid. 21 ff. (1925)Google Scholar; “Neutrality and Neutral Eights following the Pact of Paris,” 1930 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 86 ff.; “The Meaning of the Pact of Paris,” 27 A.J.I.L. 44 ff. (1933)Google Scholar; “The Concept of Aggression in International Law,” 29 ibid. 386 ff. (1935)Google Scholar; “The Test of Aggression in the Italo-Ethiopian War,” 30 ibid. 45 ff. (1936)Google Scholar; “The Munich Settlement and International Law,” 33 ibid. 12 ff. (1939)Google Scholar; “The Present Status of Neutrality,” 34 ibid. 391 (1940)Google Scholar; “The Transfer of Destroyers to Great Britain,” ibid. 680; “The Lend-Lease Bill and International Law,” 35 ibid. 305 (1941)Google Scholar; “Permissive Sanctions against Aggression,” 36 ibid. 103 ff. (1942)Google Scholar; “The Law of the Nuremberg Trial,” 41 ibid. 66 ff. (1947)Google Scholar; “Collective Security in the Light of the Korean Experience,” 1951 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 172 ff.; “The Prevention of Aggression,” 50 A.J.I.L. 514 ff. (1956)Google ScholarPubMed; A Study of War 341 ff., 891 ff. (University of Chicago Press, 1942); Problems of Stability and Progress in International Relations 97 ff., 255 ff., 68 ff. (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1954) ; Contemporary International Law: A Balance Sheet 17, 39 (New York, Doubleday, 1955); The Study of International Relations 142 ff., 288 ff., 315 ff. (New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1955).

42 Loc. cit. 526.

43 See note 59 below.

44 Note 37 above, and address by Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion in Knesset, March 3, 1957, New York Times, March 4, 1957.

45 Speech in the Knesset, Nov. 7, 1956, quoted in the New York Times, Nov. 8, 1956.

46 The General Assembly adopted an Arab-Asian resolution on Jan. 19, 1957, expressing “regret and concern” at the delay in Israel’s evacuation. The vote was 74 to 2 with 2 abstentions. U.N. Doc. A/Res/453; 36 Dept. of State Bulletin 270 (1957). See Report of Secretary General, Jan. 24, 1957, printed ibid. 275. On March 4, 1957, after another General Assembly Besolution (A/Res/460), Feb. 2, 1957, Israeli Foreign Minister, Mrs. Golda Meier, stated that full agreement had been reached for withdrawal from these areas. Negotiations with the United States and General Assembly debate made it clear that withdrawal was “unconditional” though Israel was entitled to “assume” that its rights under international law would be respected.

47 The Arabs sought to justify a “state of war” on the ground that the creation of Israel was beyond the power of the General Assembly and in violation of the Charter, that the Arab countries had not recognized Israel, and were entitled to occupy the territory from which they had been illegally driven. This argument raises the problem of whether admission of a state to the United Nations implies its recognition by all the Members and whether a state of war can exist among Members of the United Nations in view of the proscription of “threat or use of force” in Art. 2, par. 4 of the Charter. See Lawyer’s Committee, cited in note 36 above.

48 Egypt introduced this resolution in the General Assembly on Dec. 24, 1956. In view of its explicit obligation under the treaty of 1888 “not to interfere with the free use of the Canal” even for defense, Egypt would have difficulty in escaping responsibility for the costs of clearing the Canal of vessels which it sank.

49 Note 36 above.

50 Charter, Art. 51.

51 The Caroline Case, 2 Moore, Digest of International Law 412 ff.

52 In his address in the Security Council, Oct. 30, Sir Pierson Dixon, the British representative, emphasized the first two of these objectives, but the immediate background indicated the importance of the latter two. See U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 749, pp. 1–5.

53 In his address to the General Assembly, Nov. 22, 1956, French Foreign Minister Christian Pineau emphasized the impotence of the United Nations in the Middle East, the Egyptian threat to Israel, protection of the Suez Canal, and the danger of Soviet intervention, adding: “We have been sharply criticized for taking the initiative in launching military operations when we had not been attacked directly. From a strictly formal point of view, I am willing to recognize the merit of this criticism”; but he added: “Everything leads us to believe that this stockpiled equipment (in Sinai) was waiting for the (Soviet) volunteers who at the chosen time, would have used it more effectively.” See also speech by British Prime Minister Anthony Eden in the House of Commons and French Premier Guy Mollet in the French National Assembly on Oct. 30, printed in the New York Times, Oct. 31.

54 See Eden’s speech in London, Nov. 16, and statement of Foreign Minister Selwyn Lloyd in House of Commons, Dec. 3, respectively, printed in New York Times, Nov. 16 and Dec. 4, 1956.

55 Note 24 above.

56 “Historicus,” Letters on some Questions of International Law 41 (London, 1863)Google Scholar.

57 Art. 4. 49 A.J.I.L. Supp. 194 ff. (1955).

58 Note 11 above.

59 First proposed in 1933 (League of Nations, Records of the Conference on Reduction and Limitation of Armament, Ser. B, Vol. 2, p. 237), revived in 1950 (U.N. Doc. A/C. 1/608, Rev. 1) and expanded in 1953 (U.N. Doc. A/AC. 66/L.2/Rev. 1, and U.N. Doc. A/2638). This definition was included in treaties signed by the Soviet Union and eleven neighboring states at London, July 3, 1933. Hudson, Manley O. (ed.), International Legislation, Vol. 6, pp. 410 ff. (Washington, Carnegie Endowment, 1937)Google Scholar; also reprinted in 27 A.J.I.L. Supp. 192 ff. (1933). A similar definition was included in the “Sa’adabad Pact” concluded on July 8, 1937, among Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan. Hudson, op. cit., Vol. 7, p. 822.

60 Statement of Nov. 16, 1956, p. 6 (cited in note 11 above).

61 Note 5 above.