Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T02:23:35.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some International and Legal Aspects of the Suez Canal Question*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Thomas T. F. Huang
Thomas T. F. Huang*
Affiliation:
Cornell Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The impact of the nationalization by the Egyptian Government on July 26, 1956, of the Suez Canal Company (Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez) upon international affairs is still reverberating. The questions of international law and other problems to which it gives rise are manifold, but this article will be restricted to an examination of four of them: first, the international and legal status of the Suez Canal Company; second, the nature and legal status of concession agreements which are referred to in the text of the Convention of October 29, 1888; third, the international status and control of the Suez Canal, particularly under the 1888 Convention; and fourth, the matter of compensation.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 1957 , pp. 277 - 307
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.)

Footnotes

*

Parts of the materials used in this article are taken from a dissertation which the author is preparing for the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science at the Harvard Law School.

References

1 See, e.g., 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; The Suez Canal Problem, July 26–September 22, 1956 (Dept. of State Pub. 6392, 1956) ; U.N. Docs. 8/P.V. 734–743 (Sept. 26–Oct. 13, 1956); U.N. General Assembly, Official Eecords, First Emergency Special Session, A/P.V. 561–572 (Nov. 1–10, 1956); United Nations Eeview, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 19 ff., No. 6, pp. 10 ff., No. 7, pp. 28 ff., 90 ff. (1956).

2 Hereinafter referred to as “1888 Convention” unless otherwise indicated.

3 See, e.g., Egyptian Presidential Decree on the Nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, July 26, 1956, English translation in The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 30 ff., and in The Suez Canal, op. cit. 41–43; Tripartite Statement of Aug. 2, 1956, The Suez Canal Problem 34–35; The Suez Canal Company and Decisions Taken by the Egyptian Government on 26th July 1956 (published by the Suez Canal Company, 1956); Livre Blanc sur la Nationalisation de la Compagnie Maritime du Canal de Suez, S.A.E. (published by the Egyptian Government, Cairo, 1956); Exchange of Correspondence between the Suez Committee and the President of the Republic of Egypt regarding the future operation of the Suez Canal, Cairo, Sept. 3–9, 1956, Egypt No. 2 (1956), Cmd. 9856; and materials cited in note 1 supra.

4 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 736, p. 2.

5 See Tripartite Statement of Aug. 2, 1956, The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 35; statement of U. K. representative, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, pp. 3–17; statement of French representative, ibid. 17–24; and statement of U. S. representative, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 738, pp. 6–13.

6 See statements of U.K. representative in Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, pp. 3–17; French representative, ibid. 17–24.

7 See statement of Egyptian representative in Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 736, pp. 1–14 at p. 2.

8 On the Suez Canal and Suez Canal Company generally, see 1 Fauchille, Traité de Droit International Public 294–339 (Part II, 1925); Recueil chronologique des actes constitutifs de la Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez (3rd ed., 1950); La Documentation Française, Notes et Etudes Documentaires, No. 2, 205, Aug. 16, 1956; Whittuck, International Canals (1920); Buell, The Suez Canal and League Sanctions (1935); Hallberg, The Suez Canal: Its History and Diplomatic Importance (1931); Schonfleld, The Suez Canal in World Affairs (1953); Hoskins, “The Suez Canal as an International Waterway,” 37 A.J.I.L. 373 (1943)Google Scholar ; Siegfried, A., “Les Canaux Internationaux et les Grandes Eoutes Maritimes Mondiales,” 74 Recueil des Cours de l’A-cadémie de Droit International 18–42 (1949)Google Scholar; Wilson, , “Some International and Legal Aspects of the Suez Canal,” 21 Grotius Society Transactions 127 (1936)Google Scholar.

9 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 736, pp. 1–14 at p. 2; Egypt in 1956 was not on the list of states that have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in accordance with Art. 36(2) of the Statute of the Court. See I.C.J. Yearbook 1955–1956, pp. 34, 183 ff.

10 See, e.g., U.K. representative statement, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, pp. 3–17; statement of French representative, ibid. 17–24; statement of U. S. representative, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 738, pp. 6–13, and Tripartite Statement of Aug. 2, 1956, by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, The Suez Canal Problem, July 26–September 22, 1956, pp. 34–35 (Dept. of State Pub. 6392, 1956).

11 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, pp. 17, 18.

12 On diplomatic protection generally, see e.g., Borchard, , The Protection of Citizens Abroad (N.Y., 1915)Google Scholar; also Mervyn Jones, J., “Claims on Behalf of Nationals Who Are Shareholders in Foreign Companies,” 26 Brit. Year Bk. of Int. Law 225 (1949)Google Scholar.

13 See I.C.J. Statute, Art. 38 (2); Judge Hudson, Manley O., The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920–1942, pp. 615–618 (N.Y., 1943)Google Scholar; Habicht, Power of the International Judge to Give a Decision Ex Aequo et Bono (1935).

14 See U.N. Docs. S/P.V. 734–743.

15 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, pp. 3, 7, 8.

16 Ibid. 17, 19.

17 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 738, pp. 6, 8.

18 See U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, pp. 3–17.

19 79 Brit. and For. State Papers (1887–1888) 18 ff.; English translation in The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 16 ft.; also in 3 A.J.I.L. Supp. 123 (1909).

20 Convention entre le Vice-Roi d’Egypte et la Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez, le 22 Février, 1866, 56 Brit. and For. State Papers (1865–1866) 277–283; English translation in The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 9–16; Recueil chronologique des actes constitutifs de la Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez 39–44 (Cairo, 1930).

21 See English translation of texts in The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 1–3, 4–9; and The Suez Canal, op. cit. 1, 4.

22 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, p. 3 at p. 6. Art. 14 of the 1888 Convention provides that “the engagements resulting from the present treaty shall not be limited by the duration of the Acts of Concession of the Universal Suez Canal Company.” The travaux préparatoires do not appear to support the view contended for. See infra, p. 282.

23 See U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 736, p. 1 at p. 7.

24 3 Reports of International Arbitral Awards (hereafter cited as Int. Arb. Awards) 1621 ff.

25 See Kelsen, , The Law of the United Nations xiii–xvii (Preface on Interpretation) (London, 1951)Google Scholar.

26 The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 16. The relevant part reads: “[The High Contracting Parties], wishing to establish, by a Conventional Act, a definite system destined to guarantee at all times, and for all the powers, the free use of the Suez Maritime Canal, and thus to complete the system under which the navigation of this canal hag been placed by the Firman of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, dated the 22nd February, 1866 (2 Zilkadé, 1282), and sanctioning the Concessions of His Highness the Khedive …”

27 See Correspondence respecting the Suez Canal International Commission with the Protocols and Procès-Verbaux of the Meetings, Egypt No. 19 (1885), State. C. 4599 (1885).

28 Extract from a Despatch from Earl Granville to Her Majesty’s Representatives at Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Borne, and St. Petersburg, Jan. 3 1883, Respecting the Suez Canal, etc. Egypt No. 10 (1885), State. C. 4335 (1885).

29 Correspondence respecting the Suez Canal International Commission with the Protocols and Procès-Verbaux of the Meetings, Egypt No. 19 (1885), State. C. 4599 (1885), p. 89.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid. 89–90.

32 Ibid. 237.

33 Ibid. 89.

34 See ibid. 237–243.

35 See 79 Brit. and For. State Papers (1887–1888) 498–534; also Correspondence respecting the proposed International Convention for Securing Free Navigation of the Suez Canal, Egypt No. 2 (1889), State. C. 5673 (1889).

36 See text of 1885 draft, supra, p. 282, and text of 1888 Convention, note 26 supra.

37 Despatch from the British Delegates on Tonnage at Constantinople, together with the Report and Recommendations of the Commission as to International Tonnage and the Suez Canal Dues. Commercial. No. 7 (1874), C. 943 (1874); The Suez Canal, op. cit. 45.

38 Despatch, cited above, p. 11. The Members of the Commission, in their order of signature were: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Spain, France, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Holland, Russia, Sweden and Norway, and Turkey.

39 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, p. 3 at p. 5.

40 P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 53.

41 Ibid. 71.

42 P.C.I.J., Ser. B, No. 4.

43 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, pp. 17, 18. For some of the instruments mentioned, see Recueil chronologique des actes constitutifs de la Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez (1950).

44 U.N. Doc 8/P.V. 735, pp. 17, 18.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid. at 19.

47 P.C.I.J., Ser. A, Nos. 20/21 at p. 41; see also Brazilian Loans Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 20.

48 League of Nations Doc. C.145. M.93. 1939. 2.A., p. 21 ([May 12] 1939).

49 See generally, e.g., 2 Beale, Conflict of Laws 1042 ff.; Dicey’s Conflict of Laws 579 ff. (6th ed., 1949); Cheshire, G. C., International Contracts (Glasgow, 1949)Google Scholar; Mann, F. A., “The Law Governing State Contracts,” 21 Brit. Year Bk. of Int. Law 11 ff. (1944)Google Scholar; Jessup, P. C., A Modern Law of Nations 139 (1944)Google Scholar; Mann, F. A., “The Proper Law of the Contract,” 3 International Law Quarterly 60–73 (1950)Google Scholar; J. H. C. Morris, “The Proper Law of a Contract: A Reply,” ibid. 197–207; P. A. Mann, “The Proper Law of the Contract: A Rejoinder,” ibid. 597–604.

50 See infra, pp. 289 ff.

51 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, pp. 17, 18; also see decisions of the Egyptian Mixed Courts recognizing the special status of the Suez Canal Company, e.g., Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez v. Campos, Egypt, Cour d’Appel Mixte, 1947, 59 Bulletin de Legislation et Jurisprudence Egyptiennes (Pt. 2) 219; Credit Alexandrin v. Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez, Egypt, Cour d’Appel Mixte, 1940, 52 ibid. (Pt. 2) 185.

52 On the legal status of the Suez Canal Company generally, see 1 Fauchille, Traité de Droit International Public (Pt. II) 294–339 (1925); 2 La Pradelle et Politis, Recueil des Arbitrages Internationaux 355 (1932).

53 See Schonfield, The Suez Canal in World Affairs 20 (1953).

54 See The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 3, 9.

55 See Correspondence relative to the Question of the Suez Canal, with the Procès-Verbaux of the Meetings held by the International Commission at Constantinople. Commercial. No. 19 (1874), C.1075 (1874), pp. 7–8.

56 See Recueil chronologique des actes constitutifs de la Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez 45 (Cairo, 1930).

57 See Schonfield, op. cit. 40; 1 Fauchille, Traité de Droit International Public (Pt. II) 294–304 (1925); Sentence Arbitrale de S. M. Napoleon III, Empereur des Français (6 Juillet 1864), Recueil … de la Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez, op. cit. 35; Sentence Arbitrale de l’Empereur des François, sur le Compromis relatif au Canal de Suez, le 6 Juillet 1864, 55 Brit, and For. State Papers (1864–65) 1005–1021 (1870).

58 See Statuts de la Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez, le 5 Janvier, 1856 (hereinafter referred to as “Statuts”), 55 Brit. and For. State Papers (1864–65) 981, 985 (1870); Recueil … de la Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez, op. cit. 12–27; The Suez Canal, op. cit. (note 1 above) 11.

59 Statuts, Arts. 1, 73.

60 Statuts, Art. 73.

61 Concession Agreement of Feb. 22, 1866, Art. 16. The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 15.

62 Ibid.

63 On the Mixed Courts of Egypt generally, see Brinton, , The Mixed Courts of Egypt (New Haven, 1930)Google Scholar.

64 Manley O. Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920–1942, p. 621 (1943).

65 See Correspondence relative to the Question of the Suez Canal, with the Procès-Verbaux of the Meetings … Commercial No. 19 (1874), C.1075, pp. 20, 30, 83–84.

66 Ibid. 21.

67 Ibid. 165.

68 Ibid. 8.

69 Ibid. 15–16, 80–81.

70 U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 736, pp. 1, 6; see also Comp. des Messageries maritimes v. Comp. Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez, Sirey, Rec. Per., 1874, I, 145; Cie. Havraise Péninsulaire v. Cie. du Canal Maritime de Suez, Feb. 15, 1924, Court of Appeal of Paris, Dalloz, Rec. Reb., 1924, p. 189; Case of Debbah et Consorts, June 4, 1925, Mixed Court of Appeals of Alexandria, 37 Bulletin de Legislation et Jurisprudence Egyptiennes (Pt. II) 466; J. Shallam & Sons v. Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez, June 18, 1931, Mixed Court of Appeal of Alexandria, 23 Gazette des Tribunaux Mixtes d’Egypte (1932–1933) 304, Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases, 1931–1932, Case No. 137; Crédit Alexandria v. Hoirs Setton et Consorts, Sept. 26, 1940, 52 Bulletin de Législation et Jurisprudence Egyptiennes (Pt. II) 185; Case of Guiseppe Campos et Consorts, May 17, 1947, 59 ibid. (Pt. II) 219.

71 See text of excerpt alleged by the Egyptian Government to be from Memorandum of the Agent of the British Government to the Mixed Court of Appeals of Alexandria in 1939, in U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 736, pp. 1, 5–6. The outcome of the case is not stated. The statement, on its face, appears rather damaging to the British case, especially the following language: “ It [the Suez Canal Company] is Egyptian because it is granted a concession which has for its object Egyptian public assets and because its legal principal centre is in Egypt. It would be a legal anomaly to consider the Company at one and the same time Egyptian and non-Egyptian, i.e., universal. Such definition contradicts the general principles of law.”

72 N.Y. General Corporation Law $210.

73 N.Y. Civ. Prac. Act. $ 977 (b), (b) (1), (b) (19).

74 On extraterritorial effect of nationalizations and expropriations generally, see Edward D. Re, Foreign Confiscations (1951); Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern, Internationales Konfiskations und Enteignungsrecht (1952); “Probleme des Internationalen Konfiskations und Enteignungsrechtes,” 83 Journal du Droit International 380 ff. (1956); Kunz, , “The Mexican Expropriations,” Contemporary Law Pamphlets, New York University, Series 5, No. 1 (1940)Google Scholar; Rado, , “Czechoslovak Nationalization Decrees—Some International Law Aspects,” 41 A.J.I.L. 795 ff. (1947)Google Scholar.

75 36 Cornell L. Q. 42, 50 (1950).

76 68 Law Quarterly Review 28–30 (1952).

77 Report of the League of Nations Committee on International Loan Contracts, League of Nations Doc. C.145.M.93. 1939. II.A, at p. 41.

78 U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/1/Rev. 1, p. 28 (1949).

79 See, generally, Feilchenfeld, 4 Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 154.

80 Aucoc, Conférence sur les Droits administratifs, Vol. II, p. 269.

81 Gidel, Des Effets de l’Annexion sur les Concessions 123 (1904).

82 Hermann Mosler, Wirtschaftskonzessionen bei Änderung der Staatshoheit 79 (1948).

83 Arthur B. Keith, The Theory of State Succession with Special Reference to English and Colonial Law 66.

84 Official Records of the Permanent Mandates Commission, Session XII (1927), pp. 156–157.

85 Brit. Parl. Papers, Cd. 623, 624 and 625.

86 Vladimir Gsovski, Soviet Civil Law, Vol. II, p. 68, citing Karass, Concession, Magerovsky, Fundamentals of Soviet Law 356, 358 (in Russian, 2d ed., 1929).

87 See Willoughby, W. W., Foreign Rights and Interests in China (Baltimore, 1930)Google Scholar.

88 See generally, Blondeau, A., La Concession de Service Public (Paris, 1933)Google Scholar; R. Bullrich, La Naturaleza Jurídica de la Concesión de Servicios Publicos; Philippe Develle, La Concession en Droit International.

89 See, e.g., Act of Algeciras, signed April 7, 1906, 24 Hertslet, Commercial Treaties 742; English translation in 2 Malloy, Treaties of the United States 2157, 2178; 1 A.J.I.L. Supp. 47 (1907).

90 Raymond L. Buell, International Relations 397–398 (1925).

91 See Opinion of the Egyptian Conseil d’Etat, May, 1883, in 10 Journal de Droit International Privé (Clunet) 321 (1883).

92 33 Brit. and For. State Papers (1844–45) 1364–1376.

93 12 ibid. (1824–25) 531–535.

94 33 ibid. (1844–45) 1377–1382.

95 3 Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Inter-American Affairs, 1831–1860, p. 94.

96 56 Brit, and For. State Papers (1865–66) 1865.

97 Ibid. 348.

98 Ibid. 368.

99 Report [to the Permanent Mandates Commission] on the Administration of Palestine and Transjordan for the year 1929, p. 194.

100 Ibid. 182.

101 Idem. for the year 1930, p. 230.

102 League of Nations Official Journal, 1932, pp. 289 ff.

103 Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case—Pleadings, Oral Arguments, and Documents 74 ff. (I.C.J., 1952).

104 Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case (Jurisdiction), Judgment of July 22, 1952, [1952] I.C.J. Rep. 93 at 112; 46 A.J.I.L. 737 at 748 (1952).

105 See, e.g., Sales of British-owned railways in Argentina and Uruguay, Brit. Parl. Papers, Cmd. 7405, 7629; Concession for the Construction of the Railroad Across the Isthmus of Panama (1847), 42 Brit. and For. State Papers (1852–1853) 1333–1352.

106 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1900, p. 903. The contentions of the parties are set out in 2 Moore, International Arbitrations 1865–1899.

107 See J. M. Jones, in 26 Brit. Year Bk. of Int. Law 229–231 (1949).

108 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1902, pp. 838, 857, 859, 862.

109 Ibid. 871–872.

110 29 Hertslet, Commercial Treaties 1126; 15 A.J.I.L. Supp. 179 (1921).

111 28 League of Nations Treaty Series 203; 18 A.J.I.L. Supp. 98 (1924).

112 P.C.I.J., Ser. A, Nos. 2 and 5 (1925).

113 Ibid. No. 11 (1927).

114 P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 62 (1934).

115 Ibid. No. 71 (1937).

116 P.C.I.J., Ser. A, Nos. 2 and 5 (1925).

117 Ibid. No. 5 (1925), p. 30.

118 Ibid. No. 11 (1927).

119 P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 62 (1934).

120 Ibid. No. 71.

121 1 Int. Arb. Awards 479.

122 Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases, 1929–30, Case No. 34; 24 A.J.L.L. 164 (1930).

123 Convention of Oct. 29, 1888, Art. 1. English translation in The Suez Canal, op. cit. 49; The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 17; 3 A.J.I.L. Supp. 123 (1909).

124 See statement of the Egyptian representative in the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 736, pp. 1–14; The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 317.

125 See, e.g., statement of U.K. representative in the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, pp. 3–17; statement of French representative, ibid. pp. 17–24.

126 See Exchange of Correspondence between the Suez Committee and the President of the Republic of Egypt regarding the future operation of the Suez Canal, Cairo, Sept. 3–9, 1956, Egypt No. 2 (1956), Cmd. 9856; The Cairo Meeting of the Suez Committee with President Nasser, The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 303–351; text of Five-Power proposal of Aug. 21, 1956, ibid. 291–292; compromise Spanish proposal, ibid. 292–293.

127 The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 317–322.

128 Concession Agreement of Jan. 5, 1856, Art. 14. English translation in The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 7.

129 See Art. 6 of the Concession Agreement of Nov. 30, 1854; Art. 15 of the Concession Agreement of Jan. 5, 1856.

130 Despatch from the British Delegate on Tonnage at Constantinople, together with the Report and Recommendations of the Commission as to International Tonnage and the Suez Canal Dues, Commercial. No. 7 (1874), C.943, p. 11.

131 See consideration of this Declaration, supra, p. 283.

132 Respecting the Israeli position in the present controversy concerning blockade, see letter dated Oct. 13, 1956, from the representative of Israel to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/3673. See also, generally, The United Nations and the Egyptian Blockade of the Suez Canal, A Study Sponsored by the Lawyers Committee on Blockades (New York, 1953)Google Scholar; “The Security Council and the Suez Canal,” 1 Int. and Comp. Law Quarterly 85 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Resolution of the U.N. Security Counsel of Sept. 1, 1951, U.N. Doc. S/2298/Rev. 1; U.N. Docs. S/P.V. 549–553, 555–556, 558; 658–664; 682–688; S/3296–3298, S/3300, S/3302; and “Conclusions du Gouvernement Egyptien au sujet des plaintes des Gouvernement étrangers quant à la visite des navires neutres et la saisie des objets de contrebande dans les ports égyptiens,” 7 Revue égyptienne de droit international 235 (1951)Google Scholar.

133 Art. 9 of the Convention of Oct. 29, 1888. The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 19.

134 See, e.g., statements of U.K. representative in the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 735, pp. 3–17, 9, 10; and French representative, ibid. 17–24, 22.

135 See Art. 9 of the Concession Agreement of Jan. 5, 1856. The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 5–6.

136 See Correspondence relative to the Question of the Suez Canal, with the Procès-Verbaux of the Meetings held by the International Commission at Constantinople, Commercial No. 19(1874), C.1075, pp. 138–141, 153–154.

137 See “Supervision of Enforcement of the 1888 Convention,” infra, p. 299.

138 See, e.g., Harvard Research in International Law, Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties, 29 A.J.I.L. Supp. 662–663, 1096–1126 (1935); 1 Oppenheim’s International Law 843–850 (7th ed.); 5 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 349–359; on a recent application of this elausula concerning the Suez Canal, see Briggs, H. W., “Rebus sic Stantibus Before the Security Council: The Anglo-Egyptian Question,” 43 A.J.I.L. 762–769 (1949)Google Scholar.

139 4 U. S. Treaty Series 5287 ff. (1938).

140 See 5 Department of State Bulletin 114–115 (1941); 5 Hackworth, op. oit. 355–356 (1943).

141 See Correspondence respecting the Suez Canal Commission, with the Protocols and Procès-Verbaux of the Meetings, Egypt No. 19 (1885), C.4599 (1885).

142 See, e.g., Exchange of Correspondence between the Suez Committee and the President of the Republic of Egypt regarding the future operation of the Suez Canal, Egypt No. 2 (1956).

143 See Correspondence respecting the Suez Canal Commission … Egypt No. 19 (1885), C.4599 (1885), pp. 27, 48, 245.

144 See ibid. 27, 47, 245.

145 Ibid. 47, 245.

146 See ibid. 26–27, 43, 88.

147 See ibid. 245.

148 Ibid.

149 See statements of U.K. representative, U.N. Doc S/P.V. 735, p. 3; and French representative, ibid., p. 17 at p. 21.

150 See, e.g., Concession Agreement of Nov. 30, 1854, Art. 1; Concession Agreement of Jan. 5, 1856, Art 1. On the general legal status of the Suez Canal, see 1 Fauchille, Traité de Droit International Public (Pt. II) 294–339 (1925).

151 See, e.g., Concession Agreement of Nov. 30, 1854, Art. 1; Concession Agreement of Jan. 5, 1856, Art. 16; Concession Agreement of Feb. 22, 1866, Art. 15.

152 Concession Agreement of Feb. 22, 1866, Art. 9.

153 See Wilson, Arnold, “Some International and Legal Aspects of the Suez Canal,” 21 Grotius Society Transactions 127 (1935)Google Scholar.

154 See discussion supra, pp. 289 ff.

155 See discussion supra, pp. 297 ft.

156 See note 141 supra.

157 See note 143 supra.

158 See Correspondence respecting the Suez Canal International Commission … Egypt No. 19 (1885), C.4599 (1885), p. 110.

159 Correspondence Respecting the Suez Canal, Egypt No. 2 (1876), C.1392 (1876), pp. 161–168.

160 For text of Art. 12, see 79 Brit, and For. State Papers (1887–1888) 22; The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 19; 3 A.J.I.L. Supp. 126 (1909).

161 See Proclamation of the Khedive respecting British Operations in the Isthmus of Suez and the Suez Canal, 74 Brit. and For. State Papers (1882–1883) 572 (1890).

162 Ibid. 553–604.

163 See Correspondence respecting the Suez Canal International Commission, with the Protocols and Procès-Verbaux of the Meetings, State, Egypt No. 19 (1885), C.4599, p. 1 (1884–1885).

164 This reservation had been made earlier with respect to the draft 1885 convention. See Correspondence respecting the Suez Canal International Commission … State, Egypt No. 19 (1885), C.4599 (1884–1885); 79 Brit. and For. State Papers (1887–1888) 498–534; Correspondence respecting the proposed International Convention for Securing Free Navigation of the Suez Canal, Egypt No. 2 (1889), State. C.5673 (1889).

165 See Declaration between Great Britain and France respecting Egypt and Morocco, April 8, 1904, 97 Brit. and For. State Papers (1903–1904) 39–41; Declaration between Great Britain and France respecting Egypt and Morocco, together with the Secret Articles, April 8, 1904. Art. 6 of the Declaration provides: “In order to ensure free passage of the Suez Canal, His Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they adhere to the stipulations of the treaty of the 29th October, 1888, and that they agree to their being put into force. The free passage of the Canal being thus guaranteed, the execution of the last sentence of paragraph 1 as well as of paragraph 2 of Art. 8 of that Treaty will remain in abeyance.” 101 Brit. and For. State Papers (1907–1908) 1053–1059, 1056.

166 For text of Art. 8 of the 1888 Convention, see 79 Brit. and For. State Papers (1887–1888) 20–21; The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 18; 3 A.J.I.L. Supp. 125 (1909).

167 See Proclamation by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief the British Forces in Egypt announcing the Establishment of a British Protectorate over Egypt, Cairo, Dec. 18, 1914, 109 Brit. and For. State Papers (1915) 436.

168 See Art. 17 of the Treaty of Peace signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923, British Treaty Series, No. 16 (1923), 117 Brit. and For. State Papers (1923) 543–591, 549; 28 League of Nations Treaty Series 12–113, 22–23; 18 A.J.I.L. Supp. 1 at 10 (1924).

169 See Art. 147, Pt. IV, Sec. VI, of the Treaty of Versailles, June 28, 1919, 112 Brit, and For. State Papers (1919) 1–316, 79; 13 A.J.I.L. Supp. 151 at 222 (1919).

170 See Arts. 102 and 107 of the Treaty of Peace signed at St. Germain-en-Laye, Sept. 10, 1919, 112 Brit. and For. State Papers (1919) 317–526, 363, 364; 14 A.J.I.L. Supp. 1 at 34, 35 (1920).

171 See Arts. 86 and 91 of the Treaty of Peace signed at Trianon, June 4, 1920, 113 Brit. and For. State Papers (1920) 486–645, 520, 521; 15 A.J.I.L. Supp. 1 at 32, 33 (1921).

172 See Circular Despatch to His Majesty’s Representatives [Abroad] … London, March 15, 1922, 116 Brit. and For. State Papers (1922) 84–85.

173 See Treaty of Alliance between the United Kingdom and Egypt, signed at London, Aug. 26, 1936, British Treaty Series No. 6 (1937), Cmd. 5360, 140 Brit. and For. State Papers (1936) 179–197; 31 A.J.I.L. Supp. 77 (1937). On consideration of this treaty in the U.N. Security Council, see Briggs, H. W., “Rebus sic stantibus before the Security Council: The Anglo-Egyptian Question,” 43 A.J.I.L. 762–769 (1949)Google Scholar.

174 Art. 8 of the Treaty of Alliance, 140 Brit. and For. State Papers 179 at 181 ff.; 31 A.J.I.L. Supp. 79–80 (1937).

175 See Heads of Agreement, Anglo-Egyptian Defense Negotiations regarding the Suez Canal Base, July 27, 1954, Egypt No. 1 (1954), Cmd. 9230; Exchange of Notes, Oct. 19, 1954, British Treaty Series No. 14 (1955), Cmd. 9390; Exchange of Notes, Egypt No. 1 (1955), Cmd. 9466.

176 Presidential Decree on the Nationalization of the Suez Canal Company of July 26, 1956. English translation in The Suez Canal Problem, op. cit. 30–32; The Suez Canal, op. cit. 41–43.

177 See statement of Egyptian representative in Security Council on Oct. 8, 1956, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 736, p. 1 at p. 3; United Nations Review, Vol. 3, No. 5, p. 46 (1956).

178 Art. 1 of Presidential Decree, loc. cit.

179 See, e.g., letter of Sept. 7 from Chairman of Suez Committee to President Nasser, in Exchange of Correspondence between the Suez Committee and the President of the Republic of Egypt … Egypt No. 2 (1956), p. 7.

180 See, e.g., Resolution of Security Council adopted on Oct. 13, 1956, U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 743; Requirements for a Settlement of the Suez Canal Situation, United Nations Review, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 19 ff. (1956).

181 The Times (London), Aug. 2, 1956, p. 9, col. 7.

182 See The Suez Canal Company and the Decision Taken by the Egyptian Government on 26th July, 1956 (26th July–15th September 1956), pp. 5, 19, 22–23.

183 See ibid. 23; New York Times, July 29, 1956, p. 1, col. 8, p. 3, col. 1; Aug. 1, 1956, p. 1, col. 1.

184 The Suez Canal Company and the Decision Taken by the Egyptian Government, op. cit. 5. See New York Times, Feb. 13, 1957, reporting the introduction of a bill in the French National Assembly declaring the company to be a French company not subject to the laws of any foreign state.

185 The Suez Canal Company, op. cit. (note 182) 26–27.

186 New York Times, Aug. 12, 1956, p. 3.

187 See, e.g., G. Walker and R. H. B. Condie, “Compensation in Nationalized Industries,” in Problems of Nationalized Industry (Robson ed.) 54–72 (1952); Note, “British Nationalization of Industry–Compensation to Owners of Expropriated Property,” 97 U. Pa. L. Rev. 520 (1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cairns, M. B., “Some Legal Aspects of Compensation of Nationalized Assets,” 16 Law and Contemporary Problems 594–619 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

188 P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 17 (1927).

189 Ibid. 46–48.

190 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 656 (1942).

191 Ibid. 662.

192 Documents on International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs), 1938, Vol. I, p. 472.

193 Damages in International Law 1386 (1937).

194 The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice 518 (1938).

195 54 Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International 429 (1935).

196 Revue de Droit International Public, 1925, p. 22.

197 32 Revue Générate de Droit International Public 22 (1925).

198 See, e.g., Einaudi, Mario, Byé, Maurice, Rossi, Ernesto, Nationalization in France and Italy (Ithaca, 1955)Google Scholar.

199 See, e.g., Rado, A. R., “Czechoslovak Nationalization Decrees: Some International Aspects,” 41 A.J.I.L. 795–806 (1947)Google Scholar.

200 See, e.g., Robson, W. A., Problems of Nationalized Industry (London, 1952)Google Scholar.

201 See, e.g., Gutteridge, Joyce, “Expropriation and Nationalization in Hungary, Bulgaria and Roumania,” 1 Int. and Comp. L. Q. 14–28 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

202 British Treaty Series No. 10 (1949), Cmd. 7627.

203 Ibid., No. 2 (1949), Cmd. 7600; see also U. S. agreement of 1948 with Yugoslavia, 62 Stat. 2658; Rode, Z. R., “The International Claims Commission of the United States,” 47 A.J.I.L. 615 (1953)Google Scholar; and Drucker, Alfred, “Compensation for Nationalized Property: The British Practice,” 49 A.J.I.L. 477 (1955)Google Scholar.

204 British Treaty Series, No. 61 (1949), Cmd. 7798.

205 Ibid., No. 34 (1951), Cmd. 8224.

206 See Doman, N. R., “Compensation for Nationalised Property in Post-War Europe,” 3 Int. Law Q. 323–342 (1950)Google Scholar.

207 See 44 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International (Session de Sienne, 1952, II) 251–323.