Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-08-19
Law Oil and The Suez Canal
Two Basic Legal Points
Are Involved in Seizure

Canal are as fully protected under
international law now as before
the seizure. The seizure of the Canal
company as a business operation
did not affect the international
rights of countries or obligations of
Egypt as to free and open access
under the international agreement
OF 1888. While Egypt may be in UNI
fettered control of the canal, she
was so even before the seizure.
Egypt is in no better physical posi-
ton because Of the seizure, to stop
transit through the canal. Witness
the stoppage of Israel ships before
the canal company was taken over.
1t is true that holding the Suez
Canal Co. may provide Egypt and
Nasser with ready mechanism for
obstructing Canal traffic, particu-
larry by raising rates unreasonably.
However. the attempt to charge UNI
reasonable rates could be justifiably
considered as a constructive closing
of the canal. This would provide a
valid international law basis for
taking governmental action to pro-
tect the rights acquired under the
international convention of 1888.
. The international conference
which is currently meeting to the
end "that steps should be taken to
establish operating arrangements
under an international system de-
signed to assure continuity of oper-
alton of the canal" has no authority
under international law, to estab-
lish an international operating
authority for the canal without the.
consent Of Egypt. This is not be-
cause Egypt, as one of the signato-
ries of the 1888 Convention, is abb
sent from the conference called UNI
der the authority of that convention.
1t Is because establishment of an
international operating authority
would change the international
rights and obligations of Egypt
without her agreement.
On the other hand, the conference
could draw up proposals for inter-
national operating and control ar
rangements to be submitted to
Egypt in the hope that it might be
willing to agree on them. If Egypt
did agree to a modification of its
international rights and obligations
in relation to the Suez Canal, it
probably would point rather sharply
to the Panama Canal and raise the
question whether the United States
shouldn't also voluntarily agree to
modification of the unilateral rights
it has in the Panama Canal
under agreement with Panama.
The conference may have the
power to act on the one breach
of Egypt's international obligations
under the 1888 Convention which
has taken place-the stoppage of
Israeli ships, or Israel-bound ships,
carrying strategic materials on the
ground that Israeli and Egypt are
still technically at war. The Con-
vention of 1888 empowers Egypt to
take measures that it might find it
necessary to take for securing by
their own forces the defense of Egypt
and the maintenance of public
order" On the other hand the Con-
vention says there shall be no OBJ
struction of free navigation even
though Egypt should be one of the
belligerentS. The exception for the
defense Of Egypt therefore must be
taken as referring to the repelling of
actual attack upon Egypt.
. Britain can, without violation of
international law, seize and conf1s-
cate any Egyptian foreign assets
and sterling balances it can lay
hands on. 1t can do this first to en-
sure that adequate compensation in
sterling is paid for Nasser's confls-
cation of the l2-year leasehold that
the canal company had left on the
canal expiring in 1859. Secondly,
over and beyond exacting compen-
sation, it could do this as seizure
just as lawful as seizure of the
canal.
Thus Britain and France appear
to have available economic meas
ures that they could take without
violating international law. and
which might well cancel out the
economic benefit that Nasser can
gain from conflscating the twelve
years Of operations the Suez Canal
Company had left.