Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:14:31.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Strait of Tiran, the Gulf of Aqaba, and the 1979 Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Ruth Lapidoth
Ruth Lapidoth*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The July 1982 issue of this Journal (pp. 532-54) published an article written by Professor Mohamed ElBaradei, The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty and Access to the GulfofAqaba: A New Legal Regime, in which he gives a contextual interpretation and evaluation of the regime laid down by Article V(2) of the Treaty of Peace. Article V(2) reads:

The Parties consider the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba to be international waterways open to all nations for unimpeded and non-suspendable freedom of navigation and overflight. The Parties will respect each other's right to navigation and overflight for access to either country through the Strait of Tiran and the GulfofAqaba.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , January 1983 , pp. 84 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1983

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 Treaty of Peace, Egypt-Israel, Mar. 26, 1979, reprinted in 18 ILM 362, 365 (1979).

2 As this article goes to press, the final text of the Convention is not yet available to the author. Reference will be made to the last available draft, Working Paper 1 of the Drafting Committee, dated June 7, 1982, No. 82–16124. The Convention will be cited hereinafter as the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

3 On bays, see mainly Bouchez, L., The Regime of Bays in International Law (1964)Google Scholar; and Strohl, M., The International Law of Bays (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Art. 7 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 15 UST 1606, TIAS No. 5639, 516 UNTS 205 [hereinafter cited as the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea]; Art. 10 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

5 L. Bouchez, note 3 supra, at 20, quoted in ElBaradei, , The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty and Access to the Gulf of Aqaba: A New Legal Regime, 76 AJIL 532, 534 (1982)Google Scholar.

6 See references in L. Bouchez, note 3 supra, at 172 n.159. To this list may be added 3 Verzijl, J., International Law in Historical Perspective 294, 592 (1970)Google Scholar.

7 See references in L. Bouchez, note 3 supra, at 171 nn.157 and 158. To this list should be added 4 Rousseau, C., aDroit International Public 395, 397 (1980)Google Scholar; Gross, , The Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea and the Right of Innocent Passage through the Gulf of Aqaba, 53 AJIL 564, 576 (1959)Google Scholar.

8 L. Bouchez, note 3 supra, at 173.

9 3 Gidel, G., Le Droit International Public de la mer 595–96 (1934)Google Scholar; C. Rousseau, note 7 supra, at 395.

10 Suy, , Les Golfes et les baies en droit international public, 54 Die Friedenswarte 101, 112(1957/ 58)Google Scholar.

11 L. Bouchez, note 3 supra, at 179.

12 Id. at 181.

13 Id. at 281. See also Blum, Y., Historic Titles in International Law (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a different theory on historic waters, see Hashem, , Rationale of the Theory of Historic Bays with Special Reference to the International Status of the Gulf of Aqaba, 25 Rev. Egyptienne Droit Int’l 1 (1969)Google Scholar.

14 See Historic Bays, Memorandum by the Secretariat of the United Nations, UN Doc. A/ CONF.13/1 (1957), in 1 [First] United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, official Records 21–28, paras. 94–136; Y. Blum, note 13 supra, at 296 et seq.; Malek, , La Théorie dite des bates historiques, 1957 Rev. Droit Int’l Pour le Moyen-Orient 129 Google Scholar.

15 E.g., L. Bouchez, note 3 supra, at 199; Hashem, note 13 supra.

16 English translation in 11 AJIL 674 (1917).

17 Id. at 693.

18 Id. at 693–94 and 709–11.

19 ElBaradei, note 5 supra, at 538.

20 Art. 4(5) of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea; Art. 7(6) of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

21 Art. 5(2) of the 1958 Convention; Art. 8(2) of the 1982 Convention.

22 See ElBaradei, note 5 supra, at 548.

25 See, e.g., the statement by the delegates from Thailand, 2 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records 275 (1975); Iran, at 273; German Democratic Republic, at 276; and Israel, at 274.

24 UN Doc. A/CONF.62/L.110 (1982).

25 UN Press Release No. SEA/494, Apr. 30, 1982, at 9.

26 ElBaradei, note 5 supra, at 544 and 553; but see p. 549.

27 For a more detailed discussion, see book mentioned in note * supra, at pp. 121–24.

28 UN Doc. A/3575 (1957). See also Colloque de Juristes Arabes sur la Palestine, La Question Palestinienne 174–76 (Algiers, 1967), translated as Seminar of Arab Jurists on Palestine, The Palestine Question (Beirut, 1968).

29 See Hammad, , The Right of Passage in the Gulf of Aqaba, 15 Rev. Egyptienne Droit Int’l 118–51 (1959)Google Scholar; and Rabbath, E., Mer Rouge et Golfe d’Aqaba dans l’Évolution du Droit International 41–55 (1965)Google Scholar.

30 Melamid, , Legal Status of the Gulf of Aqaba, 53 AJIL 412 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Indeed, in the past the littoral states themselves did not consider the Gulf of Aqaba as historic waters, as demonstrated by the following declaration of Egypt included in an aide-mémoire presented to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo in 1950, when the islands of Tiran and Sanafir came under Egyptian control:

[T]his occupation being in no way conceived in a spirit of obstructing in any way innocent passage through the stretch of water separating these two islands from the Egyptian coast of Sinai, it follows that this passage, the only practicable one, will remain free as in the past, in conformity with international practices and recognized principles of the law of nations.

Quoted in 9 UN SCOR (659th mtg.), para. 103 (1954). The declaration was originally given in French.

51 See statements by the United States, France, Costa Rica, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland before the General Assembly, 11 UN GAOR (666th, 667th, and 668th mtgs.) at 1275 et seq., UN Docs. A/PV.666–68 (1957).

32 See Colloque de Juristes Arabes, note 28 supra, at 170–74; and Hammad, note 29 supra, at 140–51.

33 See Art. 7 of the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement of Feb. 24, 1949, UN Doc. S/1264/Rev.1, 42 UNTS 252.

34 See Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan-Israel General Armistice Agreement, Apr. 3, 1949, UN Doc. S/1302/Rev.1, Ann. I, Map I, pt. 2, 42 UNTS 304 (map not reproduced in UNTS).

35 36 Dep’t State Bull. 392–93 (1957). This passage was also cited by Henry Cabot Lodge, U.S. representative to the General Assembly, on March 1, 1957, 11 UN GAOR (666th mtg.) at 1277–78, and in a statement delivered to the Heads of Mission of the Arab states in Washington on June 27, 1957. See 3 The Arab-Israeli Conflict 668 (J. N. Moore ed. 1974). See also 4 Whiteman, M., Digest of International Law 465–80 (1965)Google Scholar. President Dwight D. Eisenhower again referred to this statement in an address on Feb. 20, 1957, when he said that the Gulf of Aqaba constituted international waters and no nation had the right to prevent free and innocent passage in the Gulf. He added, “the United States was prepared to exercise this right itself and to join with others to secure general recognition of this right.” 36 Dep’t State Bull. 387–91 (1957). For additional statements to this effect, see Gross, note 7 supra, at 576 n.52. For declarations by other states on the right of passage, see references in note 31 supra.

36 J Verzijl, note 6 supra, at 602.

37 14 ILM 1468 (1975).

38 This provision was not terminated by the new 1979 Memorandum of Agreement between the United States and Israel. See Art. 8 of the 1979 text, 18 ILM 537 (1979).

39 See, e.g., Brüel, E., International Straits: A Treatise on International Law, 2 vols. (1947)Google Scholar; Lapidoth, R., Les Détroits en Droit International (1972)Google Scholar; Butler, W., Northeast Arctic Passage (1978)Google Scholar; Leifer, M., Malacca, Singapore and Indonesia (1978)Google Scholar; Ramazani, R., The Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz (1979)Google Scholar; Truver, S., The Strait of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean (1980)Google Scholar; Alexandersson, S., The Baltic Straits (1982)Google Scholar (the last six volumes were published in the series International Straits of the World under the general direction of G. Mangone).

40 Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom v. Albania), 1949 ICJ Rep. 4 (Judgment of Apr. 9).

41 ElBaradei, note 5 supra, at 545. See also Djamchid, , Du droit de passage dans le détroit de Than, 30 Rev. Egyptienne Droit Int’l 28 (1974)Google Scholar; Murti, , The Legal Status of the Gulf of Aqaba, 7 Indian J. Int’l L. 203 (1967)Google Scholar; and El-Hakim, A., The Middle Eastern States and the Law of the Sea 155–61 (1979)Google Scholar.

42 Gross, note 7 supra, at 594. See also Martin, P., Le Conflit Israélo-Arabe, Recherches Sur l’Emploi de la Force en Droit International Public Positif 110 (1973)Google Scholar.

43 Gross, note 7 supra, at 594.

44 G. Gidel, note 9 supra, at 603.

46 ElBaradei, note 5 supra, at 546.

46 In this respect an analogy with the term “international flights” may be interesting.

47 See, e.g., Baxter, R. & Triska, J. , The Law of International Waterways with Particular Regard to Interoceanic Canals 9 (1964)Google Scholar: and McDougal, M. & Burke, W., The Public Order of the Oceans—A Contemporary International Law of the Sea 212 (1962)Google Scholar; Pharand, , International Straits, in Thesaurus Acroasium, Vol. VII: the Law of the Sea 64, 67–71 (Thessaloniki 1977)Google Scholar.

48 See Hodgson, & Mclntyre, , Maritime Commerce in Selected Areas of High Concentration, in Hazards of Maritime Transit 1, 3 ( Clingan, T. & Alexander, L. eds. 1973)Google Scholar.

49 1949 ICJ Rep. at 28.

50 On innocent passage, see Arts. 14–23 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea, and Arts. 17–32 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. See also G. Gidel, note 9 supra, at 193–291; 4 M. Whiteman, note 35 supra, at 343–80; Slonim, , The Right of Innocent Passage and the 1958 Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea, 5 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 96 (1966)Google Scholar.

51 In April 1982, two amendments were submitted to the Law of the Sea Conference in order to authorize states to limit the right of innocent passage of warships in their territorial sea: UN Docs. A/CONF.62/L.97 (1982), and A/CONF.62/L.117 (1982). In response to appeals by the President of the conference, Mr. Koh, the amendments were not pressed to the vote, but he read out a statement saying that the sponsors’ agreement to renounce the vote was “without prejudice to the right of coastal States to safeguard their security interests in accordance with articles 19 and 25 of the Convention.” See UN Press Release No. SEA/494, Apr. 30, 1982, at 37.

52 1949 ICJ Rep. at 28. It has been maintained, however, that the passage of warships in straits may be subjected to stricter regulations than the passage of merchant ships. See Note, Peacetime Passage by Warships Through Territorial Straits, 50 Colum. L. Rev. 220 (1950).

53 On this point, see Sir Gerald, Fitzmaurice, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: General Principles and Substantive Law, 27 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 1, 28–29 (1950)Google Scholar.

54 Schwarzenberger, G., The Law of Armed Conflict, in 2 International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals 40 (1968)Google Scholar; Jessup, , Should International Law Recognize an Intermediate Status Between Peace and War?, 48 AJIL 98 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 1949 ICJ Rep. at 29.

56 For a different opinion, see A. El-Hakim, note 41 supra, at 162–66 and 167.

57 ElBaradei, note 5 supra, at 545. See also the authors referred to in note 41 supra.

58 Cattan, H., Palestine and International Law: The Legal Aspects of the Arabisraeli Conflict 174 (2d ed. 1976)Google Scholar; Hartwig, , Der israelisch-ägyptische Streit urn den Golf van Ahaba, 9 Archiv des Völkerrechts 42 (1961–62)Google Scholar.

59 Higgins, R. , Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations 214–15 (1963)Google Scholar; Moore, , The Arab-Israeli Conflict and the Obligation to Pursue Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, 19 Kan. L. Rev. 403, 422–23 (1971)Google Scholar; Feinberg, N., The Legality of a ’State of War’ After The Cessation of Hostilities under the Charter of the United Nations and the Covenant of The League of Nations 42 (Jerusalem, 1961)Google Scholar.

60 Among the proliferous literature on the new regime, see in particular Reisman, The Regime of Straits and National Security: An Appraisal of International Lawmaking, 74 AJIL 48 (1980); Moore, , The Regime of Straits and the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea , id. at 77 Google Scholar; Burke, , Submerged Passage Through Straits: Interpretations of the Proposed Law of the Sea Treaty Text, 52 Wash. L. Rev. 193 (1977)Google Scholar.

61 Arts. 36–44 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

62 Art. 45 of the 1982 Convention.

63 Opinions differ somewhat on whether submerged passage has actually been authorized by the Convention. See the articles referred to in note 60 supra.

64 See the U.S. proposal, submitted to the UN Sea-bed Committee, UN Doc. A/AC. 138/SC.II/ L.4 (1971). For comments, see Knight, , The 1971 United States Proposals on the Breadth of the Territorial Sea and Passage Through International Straits, 51 Or. L. Rev. 759 (1972)Google Scholar. Compare the draft submitted by the Soviet Union to the Sea-bed Committee, UN Doc. A/AC.138/SC.II/L.7 (1972), and by the Communist bloc to the Caracas session of the Third Law of the Sea Conference, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.11 (1974), in 3 Official Records 189.

65 United Kingdom draft submitted to the Caracas session, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3 (1974), 3 Official Records 183.

66 For criticism of this distinction, see Reisman, note 60 supra, at 66–67.

67 See Moore, note 60 supra, at 111.

68 Art. 311 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

69 Compare Art. 311(2) with 311(3).

70 Moore, note 60 supra, at 112.

71 See ElBaradei, note 5 supra, at 550.

72 1 Fauchille, P., Traité de droit International Public, pt. 2, “Paix,” at 250, para. 506 (1925)Google Scholar.

73 According to L. Bouchez, note 3 supra, at 179: “obviously the State which is not situated at the entrance nevertheless is entitled to free communication with the high seas” even if the sovereignty of the littoral states over the waters of the bay should be recognized.

74 See note 36 supra and accompanying text.

75 17 ILM 1470 (1978).

76 Arts. II(l)(c), III(4), and IV(3) of Ann. I to the Treaty of Peace, supra note 1.

77 Id., Arts. II(l)( d), III(1), (2), and (5), and IV(1) and (5) of Ann. I.

78 Reisman, note 60 supra, at 76.

79 18 ILM 392, 392 (1979).

80 See note 12 supra and accompanying text.

81 See, e.g., Arts. 24(1 Kb), 25(3), and 42(2) of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

82 Burke, note 60 supra, at 201 & n.28.

83 Art. 2 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, 13 UST 2312, TIAS No. 5200, 420 UNTS 82.

84 ElBaradei, note 5 supra, at 551.

85 “Egyptian civil police equipped with light boats, lightly armed, shall perform normal police functions within the territorial waters of Zone C.”

86 Art. 5(2) of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea; Art. 8(2) of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

87 Art. 34(1) of the 1982 Convention.

88 Arts. 111(6) and IV(6) of Ann. I, Treaty of Peace, supra note 1.

89 ElBaradei, note 5 supra, at 546.

90 Art. VI(2Xd) of Ann. I, Treaty of Peace, supra note 1.

91 Art. 10(d) of the Annex to the Protocol (on the establishment of the MFO), 20 ILM 1190, 1191 (1981).

92 See, e.g., statement by the Head of the Israel Delegation, Ambassador S. Rosenne, on March 31, 1982 (not yet published in the Official Records).

93 Art. VI(1) of Ann. I, Treaty of Peace, supra note 1.

94 Id., Art. VI(2)(d).

95 See Bar, Yaacov, Keeping the Peace Between Egypt and Israel, 1973–1980, 15 Israel L. Rev. 197, 198 (1980)Google Scholar.

96 See reference in note 91 supra. The exchanges of letters were not published in ILM, but have been published in various publications of Congress, e.g., Creation of the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) for the Sinai: Hearings and Markup Before the House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 161–73 (1981).

97 Art. 5 of the Protocol, Arts. 8–10 of the Annex, note 91 supra.

98 Art. II(l)(c)(5) of Ann. I, Treaty of Peace, note 1 supra.

99 Apparently, the islands are under Egyptian sovereignty, as stated by the representative of Egypt in the Security Council on Feb. 15, 1954, 9 UN SCOR (659th mtg.) at 19 (para. 102) and 25 (paras. 123–25). Similarly, in a press conference Minister of State Boutros Ghali said on Apr. 25, 1982, that “the two islands are now part of Zone C in Sinai under Egyptian sovereignty.”

100 Art. VI of Ann. I, Treaty of Peace, note 1 supra; Art. 10 of the Annex to the Protocol on the establishment of the MFO, note 91 supra.

101 18 ILM 532–33 (1979).

102 Id. at 537–39. It should be mentioned that Egypt frowned on the conclusion of the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States and Israel, and was not interested in concluding a similar agreement with the United States. See id., letters from Egypt, at 536–37.

103 Moore, note 60 supra, at 121: “With or without a new convention . . . the UNCLOS straits regime seems destined to serve as a powerful model for the development of a new customary law of straits transit.” However, according to conference President Koh, and other participants, states may not “pick what they like and disregard what they do not like” in the Convention. See Press Release SEA/514, Dec. 10, 1982, at 8.

104 On the relationship between Resolution 242 and the Treaty of Peace in the context of the rules applicable to the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba, see also id. at 113.

105 128 Cong. Rec. S4089 (daily ed. Apr. 27, 1982).

106 See, e.g., Art. 5 of the Treaty between Argentina and Chile, signed at Buenos Aires on July 23, 1881: “Magellan’s Straits are neutralized for ever, and free navigation is guaranteed to the flags of all nations. To insure this liberty and neutrality no fortifications or military defences shall be erected that could interfere with this object.” 72 Brit. & Foreign St. Papers 1103, 1104.

107 Ibid.

108 See also Akehurst, , The Peace Treaty Between Egypt and Israel, 7 Int’l Rel. 1035, 1048 (1981)Google Scholar.

109 ElBaradei, note 5 supra, at 554.