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: 27 February 2017
In 1986 Egypt and Israel agreed to submit for resolution by binding arbitration the boundary disputes involving the location of 14 demarcation pillars along their shared border on the Sinai Peninsula. A five-member tribunal (Tribunal), appointed and empowered under provisions of the 1979 Treaty of Peace Between Egypt and Israel (Treaty), and authorized by the Compromis to adopt only locations proposed by one of the state parties, held (4-1): that the Egyptian position is to be accepted on the most important dispute, the location of the southernmost pillar denoting “Ras Taba on the western shore of the Gulf of Aqaba”; and, with respect to the 13 remaining pillars in an uninhabited desert region, the position of Egypt is to be accepted in nine instances and that of Israel in four. Professor Lapidoth dissented from the decision as to the pillars in the Taba and Ras el Naqb areas.
1 Agreement to Arbitrate the Boundary Dispute concerning the Taba Beachfront, reprinted in Award, App. A, and 26 ILM 1 (1987) [hereinafter Arbitration Agreement or Compromis].
2 Treaty of Peace, Mar. 26, 1979, Egypt-Israel, reprinted in 18 ILM 362 (1979). The Tribunal consisted of Ruth Lapidoth, nominated by Israel; Hamed Sultan, nominated by Egypt; Gunnar Lagergren, who served as its President; and Pierre Bellet and Dietrich Schindler. Award, para. 4, at 3.
3 Taba, a strip of land several hundred meters at its widest point, lies immediately southwest of the Israeli city of Eilat on the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba.
4 Award, para. 3, at 2 (quoting Treaty, supra note 2, Art. VII).
5 Id., para. 176, at 81. The parties also empowered the Tribunal to create a “Chamber” consisting of the two national members and Judge Bellet, to explore the possibilities for a settlement of the dispute. Arbitration Compromis, supra note 1, Art. IX, id., App. A, at 221. In March 1988, the Chamber reported that it “regretted not having been able to propose to the Parties any recommendation for a settlement of the dispute.” Award, paras. 8–11, at 5–7.
6 Award, para. 165, at 77 (quoting Treaty, supra note 2, Art. II). This “formula” originated in the Camp David Accords and was repeated, in slightly revised form, in the Treaty and the Arbitration Agreement. Id., para. 169, at 78.
7 The Tribunal emphasized the importance of conclusiveness in establishing national borders and noted that “[i]n general, when two countries establish a frontier between them, one of the primary objects is to achieve stability and finality.” Id., para. 210, at 105–06 (quoting Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Merits), 1962 ICJ Rep. 6, 34 (Judgment of June 15)). If parties have considered a demarcated frontier as valid “over a long time,” this serves as an “authentic interpretation of the relevant international title.” Id., para. 120, at 105 (quoting G. Ress, The Delimitation and Demarcation of Frontiers in International Treaties and Maps 435–37 (Thessaloniki 1985)).
8 Id., para. 71, at 36 (quoting Mandate for Palestine, July 24, 1922, 116 Brit. & Foreign St. Papers [BFSP] 842 (1923)).
9 Id., para. 85, at 41.
10 Id., para. 74, at 37. See also Agreement for the Fixing of an Administrative Line, Oct. 1, 1906, Egypt-Turkey, 203 Parry’s TS 19, 99 BFSP 482 (1905–06). At this time, Egypt was occupied by Great Britain, while remaining a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire.
11 Id., paras. 45–46, 50, at 24–26 (quoting 1906 Agreement, supra note 10, Art. 3). In May 1906, Great Britain and Turkey had exchanged diplomatic notes stating their intention to mark the “line of demarcation running approximately straight from Rafeh [on the Mediterranean Sea] in a south-easterly direction to a point on the Gulf of Akaba not less than 3 miles from Akaba.” Id., para. 32, at 18 (quoting diplomatic notes of May 14 and 15, 1906).
12 Id., para. 58, at 30.
13 Id., para. 173, at 80. The Tribunal rejected the Israeli position, holding that Egypt and Britain had participated jointly in the demarcation exercise that followed the signing of the 1906 Agreement and had taken no steps to dissociate themselves from the results. In fact, the Tribunal concluded that both nations were “well acquainted” with the demarcated line. Id., para. 170, at 78–79.
14 Pillar No. 91. See id., para. 214, at 108 (quoting Arbitration Compromis, supra note 1, annex).
15 Israel’s border extends southward to an apex on the Gulf of Aqaba between Egypt and Jordan. Excluding the disputed Taba area, Israeli territory at the Gulf of Aqaba is only a few kilometers wide.
16 Award, para. 214, at 108 (quoting Arbitration Compromis, supra note I, annex); and id., para. 217, at 109.
17 Id., paras. 226–29, at 115–17.
18 Id., paras. 215–16, at 108–09. The Tribunal found that on Dec. 31, 1906, A. C. Parker, Governor of Sinai, observed and took photographs of the construction of the pillar at Ras Taba. Id., para. 56, at 30.
19 The Tribunal rejected Israel’s position that this constituted a situation of non licet, preventing a decision on the merits of the case because of the restricted authority granted the Tribunal by the Arbitration Agreement. Id., para. 239, at 123–24.
20 Id., para. 240, at 124–25 (quoting Arbitration Compromis, supra note 1, annex).
21 Id., para. 243, at 127.
22 Id., paras. 236–37, at 121–23 (quoting 1906 Agreement, supra note 10, Art. 1).
23 Id., paras. 230–33, at 117–19; see also note 18 supra.
24 Award, paras. 234–35, at 119–21.
25 Id., para. 182, at 85. The distances between the disputed pillar locations are also very small. Id.
26 The Tribunal found for Israel regarding pillar Nos. 14, 15, 46 and 56, and for Egypt regarding pillar Nos. 7, 17, 27, 51 and 52. See id., paras. 182–96, at 85–95.
27 Pillar Nos. 85–88. See id., paras. 197–213, at 95–107.
28 Id., para. 10, at 139; and para. 18, at 144 (Prof. Lapidoth, dissenting).
29 Id., para. 54, at 161, para. 66, at 166, and para. 76, at 171.
30 Award, para. 14, at 8.
31 An Egyptian private-sector tourism company reportedly agreed to pay to the former owners about $38.7 million for the hotel and tourist complex. The hotel will apparently continue to operate under the management of Sonesta International, with Egyptian personnel gradually replacing Israeli workers. Israel Completes Sinai Pullout, Fin. Times, Mar. 16, 1989, at 4; and Int’l Arb. Rep., March 1989, at 8, 11.
32 For the text of the Agreement of Feb. 26, 1989, between Egypt and Israel establishing the permanent boundary between the two countries at Taba and the Agreed Minutes of Egypt and Israel Concerning Tourism in South Sinai (Taba), see Int’l Arb. Rep., April 1989, at E–1, and 28 ILM 611 (1989).