Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:44:39.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relation Between the Camp David Frameworks and the Treaty of Peace — Another Dimension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Ruth Lapidoth
Get access

Extract

Since the conclusion of the two Camp David Frameworks (reproduced in this issue), much has been said about a possible relation between them, namely, whether there is any “linkage” between the Framework which deals with the bilateral relations between Egypt and Israel, and the Framework for Peace in the Middle East (the Comprehensive Framework), in particular its provisions concerning Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District. After the conclusion of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, a similar question was raised with regard to a possible link between it and the Comprehensive Framework. This question has in fact been dealt with by several provisions of the Peace Treaty and related documents, i.e., the Preamble and Article VI paragraph 2 of the Treaty, and the Agreed Minutes, all reproduced in this issue.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , April 1980 , pp. 191 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 These provisions are included in the Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty Between Egypt and Israel (henceforth the Framework on the Bilateral Relations) and in Part B, para. 2, of the Framework for Peace in the Middle East Agreed at Camp David (henceforth the Comprehensive Framework). References in this note to the Framework on the Bilateral Relations will include those provisions in the Comprehensive Framework that deal with the bilateral relations between Egypt and Israel.

2 It may be noted that in international law the word “treaty” is a generic term for all international agreements. See e.g., Article 1 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

3 The legal nature of the Frameworks has been discussed in Lapidoth, R., “The Camp David Agreements: Some Legal Aspects” (Winter 1979) 10 The Jerusalem Quarterly, 14–27, at pp. 16–19.Google Scholar

4 Dictionnaire de la terminologie du droit international (Paris, Sirey, 1960) 435.

5 United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 136, p. 45.

6 Cmd 6456. Article VIII of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan of 3 April 1949 was probably also a pactum de contrahendo of this category. See also Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, Annex III, Article 2(2), 3(2), 6(4). On the various kinds of pacta de contrahendo, see McNair, A.D., The Law of Treaties (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961) 27–29.Google Scholar

7 Oppenheim, L. — Lauterpacht, H., International Law — A Treatise (London, Longmans, 7th ed., 1952) vol. II, pp. 607–608, 891.Google Scholar On the various kinds of peace preliminaries, see Dictionnaire, op. cit., supra n. 4 at 467–8.

8 UN Doc. A/Conf. 39/27, 23 May 1969.

9 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966) vol. II, pp. 252–253.

10 Permanent Court of International Justice, 1939, Series A/B, No. 77, p. 92.