Some International and Legal Aspects of the Suez Canal Question

1957 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas T. F. Huang

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.

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-307
Author(s):  
Barbara Mielnik

Abstract The Nile, one of the longest rivers in the world, has not been subjected to a uniform legal regime yet, despite the pressing needs. The hitherto proposals presented by the riparian states of the lower and upper reaches have not been unanimously accepted. Egypt and Sudan face particular difficult situation since the Nile river is their main source of water supply. It is argued that the lack of necessary coordination among all the States in the basin may in the future lead to significant damage and consequences both in terms of access to water and its quality. This short study critically examines past and present initiatives undertaken to solve one of the most controversial aspects of international law in Africa.


2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Volodymyr Kopanchuk ◽  
Tetiana Zanfirova ◽  
Tetiana Novalska ◽  
Dmytro Zabzaliuk ◽  
Kateryna Stasiukova

Cooperation between the Council of Europe and the European Union is of great interest to Ukraine, which defines the entry into the European legal field as one of the main vectors of its development. The study is devoted to the study of the peculiarities of the impact of cooperation between the Council of Europe and the European Union on the development of modern international law. The authors studied the formation and development of collaboration between the Council of Europe and the EU; emphasized the legal aspects of cooperation between the European Council and the EU in the EU enlargement process; analyzed in detail the types of international agreements through the legal aspect and clarified the impact of cooperation between the Council of Europe and the EU on the development of modern international law and describe the forms of international legal cooperation between the Council of Europe and the EU.


2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Goodman

The legal status of humanitarian intervention poses a profound challenge to the future of global order. The central question is easy to formulate but notoriously difficult to answer: Should international law permit states to intervene militarily to stop a genocide or comparable atrocity without Security Council authorization? That question has acquired even greater significance in the wake of military interventions in Kosovo and Iraq, and nonintervention in the Sudan. Concerted deliberation on these issues, however, has reached an impasse. A key obstacle to legalizing unilateral humanitarian intervention (UHI) is the overriding concern that states would use the pretext of humanitarian intervention to wage wars for ulterior motives. In this article, I argue that it is just as likely, or even more likely, that the impact on states would be the opposite. Drawing on recent empirical studies, I contend that legalizing UHI should in important respects discourage wars with ulterior motives, and I discuss changes to international legal institutions that would amplify that potential effect.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 502-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentin Jeutner

Abstract Nord Stream 2 is a highly controversial megaproject. This text shows that the political controversy surrounding Nord Stream 2 does not necessarily translate to legal controversy. The text does so by considering three controversially discussed European and international legal aspects of the Nord Stream 2 project. The article commences by evaluating whether and how [whether and how] the recent amendment to the European Union (EU) Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas affects the legal status of Nord Stream 2. The text concludes that Directive 2009/73/EC (as amended) makes it considerably more difficult to operate Nord Stream 2. It will also be established that legal uncertainty remains concerning the amended Directive’s compliance with European and international law, and that bilateral relations between Russia and Germany are, in any case, unaffected by changes in EU law. The article then proceeds to evaluate the argument that Germany’s involvement with Nord Stream 2, in light of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, violates international law since Germany, by doing so, violates the obligation not to recognize or support annexation by an aggressor state. This argument is rejected. Even if one assumes that Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol was unlawful, Germany’s support of Nord Stream 2 cannot be legally construed as support for Russia’s activities concerning Crimea and Sevastopol. Finally, the article considers the international legal framework conditioning the currently still outstanding permission by Denmark to lay Nord Stream 2 pipelines through the Danish territorial sea/the Danish Exclusive Economic Zone. In this regard, it is concluded that the legal scope for Denmark to reject Nord Stream 2’s application for permission to lay the pipeline through Danish waters is very limited.


Concomitant with the rising relevance of international organizations in international affairs, and the general turn to litigation to settle disputes, international institutional law issues have increasingly become the subject of litigation, before both international and domestic courts. While there are several textbooks introducing the law of international organizations, the judicial treatment of this sub-field of international law has not been given the attention due to it. This book contains excerpts of the most prominent international and domestic judicial decisions that are relevant to the law of international organizations, as well as comments thereto. The book contains case-notes regarding about fifty judicial decisions of international and domestic courts. Each case-note consists of five sections, discussing (1) the relevance of the case, (2) the facts, and (3) the legal question; giving (4) a relevant excerpt of the judicial decision; and (5) commenting on the decision. The commentaries are written by leading experts, both scholars and practitioners. The book is divided into seven parts, which correspond to classic categories of international institutional law: (1) legal status (personality), (2) legal powers, (3) institutional structures and position of members, (4) legal acts, (5) obligations, (6) responsibility and accountability, and (7) immunity.


Author(s):  
Daniel H. Meester

SummaryIn light of the global prevalence of secessionist movements, some have proposed “remedial secession” as a last resort solution where a “people” is either denied internal self-determination or is faced with massive human rights violations by a repressive regime. While lack of state practice largely confined this concept to academic circles through the 1990s and much of the 2000s, remedial secession received renewed international legal attention in the proceedings concerning the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 2008 advisory opinion in the caseAccordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo(Kosovocase).In light of support for remedial secession expressed in the submissions of eleven states, as well as its apparent endorsement in the separate opinions of two ICJ judges, advocates of remedial secession may plausibly argue that the soft law status of the concept has been strengthened and perhaps even that it is in the process of emerging as a regional customary norm for those states that supported it. However, the impact of theKosovocase on solidifying the legal status of remedial secession should not be overstated, as opponents of the concept may point to a number of contrary indicators that also emerged from the formal discourse surrounding the case.


2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 909-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
YOSHIFUMI TANAKA

AbstractOn 19 November 2012, the International Court of Justice gave its judgment concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. This judgment includes several important issues which need serious consideration, such the as legal status of maritime features, the interpretation and application of Article 121 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the methodology of maritime delimitations, the role of proportionality in maritime delimitations, and the impact of the judgment upon third states and effect of Article 59 of the ICJ Statute. Focusing on these issues, this contribution aims to analyse the judgment of 2012 from a viewpoint of the international law of the sea, in particular, the law of maritime delimitation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 101-116
Author(s):  
Joanna Siekiera

This article aims to analyse the legal status of regional cooperation among the South Pacific countries and territories, as not every entity in the Pacific Basin possesses International law features of a state. Regionalisation, as well as regionalism, as illustrated by the example of the South Pacific region, is a new topic to examine, especially in the Polish and European literature. Therefore, this topic does need further and deeper analysis. First of all, both regionalism and regionalisation are international phenomena that were set against the process of globalisation only in the last two decades of the 20th century. Secondly, the Pacific Ocean became more dominant in geopolitics than the Atlantic Community at the beginning of 21st century. There are many publications regarding local cooperation mechanisms worldwide. Most of them, though, concern political and/or economic integration, and neglect the legal aspects of regional integration. The outcome of this article is nonetheless to present the contemporary legal statusof the South Pacific cooperation, though it is at the stage of regionalisation, while not yet regionalism – fully formalised and structuralised just as it is on the other continents.


Author(s):  
Nigel D. White

Peacekeeping is a development of the Cold War and a creation largely of the United Nations. The deployment of such forces was not envisaged by the UN Charter of 1945, but peacekeeping has proved vital in securing a minimum level of peace and security in trouble spots around the world. Although new in its day, the “traditional” type of peacekeeping force first deployed in Suez in 1956 reflected traditional, or classical, principles of international law in that it was based on the consent of the host state or states, and even though it appeared to constitute military intervention, its respect for sovereignty was reflected in the neutrality of such forces. The trinity of peacekeeping principles of consent, impartiality, and nonuse of aggressive force very much reflected those fundamental principles of international law—of sovereignty, nonintervention, and nonuse of force found in Article 2 of the UN Charter. However, Article 2 (paragraph 7) and Chapter VII (Article 42) of the UN Charter both recognize that the UN Security Council (UNSC) has exceptional powers to undertake enforcement action, which has led to, on occasions, peacekeeping forces being given more coercive mandates. The dialectic between consensual peacekeeping and its more belligerent variant was established as early as the second full peacekeeping force in the Congo in 1960–1964, and it is currently back on the agenda as the United Nations struggles to implement the “protection of civilians” agenda through coercive mandates given to UN forces. Coercive mandates mean that peacekeepers are increasingly crossing the line to become war fighters, or “combatants” in the language of international humanitarian law, causing confusion as to the legal status of peacekeepers, who are traditionally not seen as legitimate targets; indeed, attacks on them remain prohibited. Even consensual post–Cold War peacekeeping has moved away considerably from the traditional buffer forces of the Cold War, evolving in the early 1990s toward complex civilian-military operations designed to build the peace as well as to keep it, and including within its structure military, police, humanitarian, and other civilian elements. A vast amount of literature exists on peacekeeping, a significant part of which is listed in the Oxford Bibliographies in International Relations article “Peacekeeping” by Erik K. Rundquist. The focus here is on the legal aspects of peacekeeping, and the overlap with the bibliography by Rundquist is kept to a minimum.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document