Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-08-19
BY SIMON TUCKER


When Iran seized British COM
pany-owned oil properties not long
ago. no British military force was
set into motion Instead, private
company action backed up by gov
ernmental economic action resulted
In settlement.
But when Egypt's President Canal
Abdel NasSer seized the Universal
Suez Canal Goa private COM
pany. A per cent of whose stock
is held by the British Government
armed forces moved Immediately
In gesture of protecting British
national interests, and with a threat
to apply full military force if neces-
sary to finally settle the issue.
The difference was that a life
line, not refinery, was involved.
Because Britain's economic life
line to the oil of the Middle East
seemed threatened by the Suez seiz-
ure, the British national reaction
was highly emotional, and this
emotionalism unquestionably affect
ed the way in which the British
government reacted to the Suez
stroke. AS days have passed. how
ever, there is gradually taking place
a reassessment--perhaps first as
sessment-of the international law
involved in Col NasSers conflsca-
ton and the reactions to it.
Two Bosic Propositions
Two basic propositions of inter-
national law are involved in the
seizure Of the Suez Canal Co.
The seizure did not violate any
international agreement or OBJ
LEGATION. There is no principle of in
transitional law that makes it
illegal for country to seize assets
within that country, so long as 1t
has no international agreement,
that is. with another country, pro-
tecting the assets from conf1scation.
The three-power statement which
called the international conference
on Suez now in session in London
recognized Egypt's right, under
appropriate conditions, to nation
alize assets, not impressed with an
international interest" But it dis
tinguished the Suez Canal Co.
seizure from "a simple act of
naturalization" on the ground that
''it involves the arbitrary and uni
lateral seizure by one nation of an
International agency which has the
responsibility to maintain and oper-
ate the Suez Canal. :"
The words of the 1888 Suez Canal
Convention-the only international
agreement touching the status of
the canal-do not support the sug-
gestion that there are international
rights protecting the canal. as an
economic asset. from seizure. The
only international interest" it i'm
presses upon the Canal is the right
of any country to free and open
access for any ship. Its words do
not set UP any international obli-
CATION by Egypt to refrain from
abrogating its 1856 concession to
the Suez Canal Co.
- The seizure Of British-owned
IL canal assets by Egypt, gives
Britain the right to enforce due
compensation. The only right of
governmental action that interna-
tional law gives to country whose
nationals have had their assets in
a foreign country confiscated, is to
help them secure fair recompence.
Deductions Follow
If these two international law
propositions are accepted as appli-
cable to the Suez seizure. the fol-
lowing deductions flow out Of them:
Q There is no international law
basis for using military force against
Egypt in connection with the con-
fiscation of the Canal Co. Egypt
has committed no violation OF
any international obligation owed
to any other country that would
justify governmental action to re-
, dress the violation. Hence any mill
tary action against Egypt by a
country would make that country
an aggressor under United Nations
principles, rather than country
indicating an international right.
. Rights of countries to unob-
structed transit through the Suez