No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2016
The Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel contains two provisions (Articles VII and VIII) pertaining to settlement of disputes. The object of this article is to discuss—primarily from the perspective of Israel—obligations arising under these provisions, as well as the relationship between the Treaty of Peace and Israel's obligations by virtue of its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The Joint Commission established under Article IV of the Treaty and under Article IV of the Appendix to Annex I of the Treaty will not be dealt with.
1 Done at Washington, 26 March 1979. Under Article IX, the Treaty was to enter into force upon exchange of instruments of ratification. Such instruments were exchanged on 25 April 1979. For the text of the Treaty, see infra p.
2 Sec, in general, Meron, , “Israel's Acceptance of the Compulsory lurisdiction of the of the International Court of Justice” (1969) 4 Is. L. R. 307.Google Scholar
3 Yearbook of the International Court of Justice 1975–1976 at 62–63. 252 UNTS 301. This declaration replaced that dated 4 September 1950, which took effect as from the date of the deposit of the instrument of ratification, namely 25 October 1951, and which was expressed to be for a period of five years. 108 UNTS 239.
4 Yearbook of the International Court of Justice 1975–1976 at 57. 272 UNTS 225.
5 See UN Doc. A/32/204 (1977), A/32/398 (1977), A/33/79 (1978).
6 Sohn, , “Settlement Disputes relating to the Interpretation and Application of Treaties”, 150 Academy of International Law, Recueil des Cours 261 (1976) (ii).Google Scholar
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., at 263.
9 Ibid., at 268.
10 See in general, the Ambatielos claim (Greece v. United Kingdom), 12 UNRIAA 82.
11 Meron, supra n. 2 at 319.
12 Compare, United Nations, Third Conference on the Law of the Sea, Informal Composite Negotiating Text, A/CONF. 62/WP.10/REV. 1, Arts. 282–283.
13 See Article 1 of Annex I, Article II(1)(e) of Appendix to Annex I and Maps 2 and 3.
14 Regarding passage through the Suez Canal, and its approaches, Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba, see Article V of the Treaty of Peace.
15 108 UNTS 241. See also the text of the instrument of ratification of this declaration in the Yearbook of the International Court of Justice 1950–51 at 193.
16 104 L.N.T.S. 494.
17 From diplomatic correspondance in the files of the Israel Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
18 For an example of a formal protest by one State concerning a reservation made by another State in a declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, see the letter by Sweden of 23 February 1956, addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and relating to reservation (3) in the declaration of Portugal. I.C.J. Pleadings, Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Ter ritory (1960) at 217.
19 Were this interpretation not included in the instrument of ratification, an interest ing question would have arisen concerning the status vis-à-vis third States of the interpretation contained in the diplomatic correspondence.
20 108 UNTS 241, n. 2. For a comment by an Arab scholar, see Shihata, , The Power of the International Court to Determine its Own Jurisdiction (1965) 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Shihata observes: “The first declaration of Israel… seemed for a while to suggest that it was made with a reservation to the compétence de la compétence. Nothing in the wording of the declaration itself carried this meaning. The confusion was however introduced by the wording of the instrument of ratification; the question lost its practical relevancy, after Israel had replaced the above declaration in 1956 with a new declaration … under which this difficulty does not arise.”
21 Rosenne, , The Law and Practice of the International Court (1965) vol. 1, p. 401.Google Scholar For examples of other war exclusion clauses, see Meron, supra n. 2, at 331–332.
22 See e.g. “Colloque de Juristes Arabes sur la Palestine. La Question Palestinienne” (1967, Juillet) Alger 12–122.
23 See, e.g., Elaraby, , “Some Legal Implications of the 1947 Partition Resolution and the 1949 Armistice Agreements, The Middle East Crisis: Test of International Law” (1968) 33 Law and Contemporary Problems 97, 101–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar