[ICJ] Correspondence to Egypt

[Global Assembly]

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE​

---

To: Zero Jabour, Chief of International Affairs, the Sultanate of Egypt and the Sudan (Kelly the Mad) From: Silvester Pearce, Registrar of the Court Subject: Request for Advisory Opinion on the Right of Passage Through the Suez Canal for Vessels of the Republic of Thailand

---

January, 2005
PRIVATE & SECURE​

Your Excellency,

The Court wishes to inform you of the receipt of a Request for an Advisory Opinion from the Republic of Thailand concerning the matter between the Sultanate of Egypt and the Republic of Thailand regarding the right of passage through the Suez Canal. The Republic of Thailand has submitted before the Court two questions pertaining the the matter, namely:

1. Does the Republic of Thailand have the legal right to navigate its vessels through the Suez Canal under the current international legal framework, despite the non-recognition of its sovereignty by the Sultanate of Egypt?
2. Does the refusal by the Sultanate of Egypt to allow the passage of Thai vessels through the Suez Canal constitute a breach of its international obligations, particularly under the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and customary international law?​

The Court invites the Sultanate of Egypt and the Sudan to submit a written statement clarifying its position on the two questions it has presented to the Court.

The Registry has invited the Republic of Thailand to submit a written statement clarifying its position on the two questions it has raised before the Court.

Additionally, the Registry has informed the current governments of the signatories to the 1888 Convention of Constantinople—namely, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Russian Federation, the Empire of France, the Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Kingdom of Spain—of the submission of the Request for an Advisory Opinion. The Court invites these States to submit written statements clarifying their positions on the two questions as they pertain to the Convention of Constantinople.

The Court grants the Sultanate of Egypt and the Sudan a four-week deadline to submit its written statement.

Yours faithfully,
His Excellency the Chief Justice of the International Court of Justice
On his behalf,

Silvester Pearce
Registrar of the Court
​

---

Digital Diplomatic Communication​

 

[Kelly the Mad]

---

To: Silvester Pearce, Registrar of the Court ( Global Assembly )
From: Zero Jabour, Chief of International Affairs
Subject: RE: Request for Advisory Opinion on the Right of Passage Through the Suez Canal for Vessels of the Republic of Thailand

-- High-Security Clearance --​

---

Mr. Pearce,

Thank you for this message. The Sultanate of Egypt and the Sudan's statements are as follows.

In regards to Does the Republic of Thailand have the legal right to navigate its vessels through the Suez Canal under the current international legal framework, despite the non-recognition of its sovereignty by the Sultanate of Egypt?:

The Suez Canal is not an international body of water; no, Thailand does not have the right to passage if denied by Egypt.

In regards to Does the refusal by the Sultanate of Egypt to allow the passage of Thai vessels through the Suez Canal constitute a breach of its international obligations, particularly under the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and customary international law?:

Firstly, Egypt is blocking Thai access to Egypt's territorial waters. This is an internatinoally recognized legal o=boundary of sovreignty, where all nations have the right to forbid passage through their territory. As the entirety of the Gulf of Suez is within Egyptian territorial waters, it is fully within Egypt's rights to deny any entity access to the gulf and, by extension, the approach to the Suez Canal.

It is worth noting that, to counter one argument for the canal being international waters, the Suez Canal is an artificial channel. It has previously been argued that the Suez is a strait, and thus an international passage as any other natural strait (Gibraltar, the Bosphorus). However, the Suez was constructed by a nation on territory, by definition unnatural, and therfore is not considered a natural straight and not considered international waters by those standards. In fact, the Suez would be considered internal waters- waters without a right of innocent passage for any nation without the permission of the Egyptian government. On this basis alone, Thailand would have no right to pass through Egyptian waters and the Suez Canal.

Secondly, Egypt has no obligations from the Constantinople Convention of 1888. The Constantinople Convention of 1888 specifically states in Article I that "...the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal, in time of war as in time of peace." Egypt was not a high contracting party, and thus does not assume those obligations laid out in the treaty.

Right to self-determination and Territorial Integrity are "Jus Cogens," and thus take precedence over treaties or other forms of written law. Egypt and its people, not party to the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and at the time under the colonial rule of both the Ottoman Empire and the occupying British Empire, had no part in the creation of this treaty- it would be against the norm of self-determination to consider modern Egypt to be under the jurisdiction of this treaty, which infringes on its territorial integrity and national sovereignty without consent.

According to Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, "A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent." Egypt, as a third state non-consenting to the Constantinople Convention of 1888, would therfore not be bound by this treaty.

According to Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, "Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory." Seeing as no members of the convention control the Suez or its surrounding territory any longer, the convention does not apply there. This would have supported the Convention prior to Egyptian independence, when the British and Ottomans maintained Egypt as a colony, however now with its independence these powers have no territorial claim on the Canal and cannot enforce the treaty.

Thirdly, in regards to the Thai claim of customary international law, the freedom of transit in the Suez Canal does not qualify as Customary International Law due to not meeting the qualification of "Opinio juris sive necessitatis." The practice of the freedom of transit was NOT permitted out of a sense of legal obligation; this is shown by the closures of the Suez Canal from 1956-1957 and 1967-1975 during wartime. Egypt clearly did not consider the treaty to be customary international law, as it saw its actions at the time as legal. Egypt has since it's independence considered the Canal to be under it's sole jurisdiction, and has only opened it to worldwide traffic as a privilege, not a right. This disproves the international law argument of the Thai government.

The neutrality of the Suez Canal is not "Jus Cogens," and therefore is not subject to the Silence as Consent concept. This means that any nation has the right to object and refuse to participate in this practice. In this way, by objecting to the idea of neutrality of the Suez Canal, Egypt can legally refuse to participate in the supposed norm of neutrality of the Suez Canal.

---

Egypt considers the Thai government a rogue state. Following the assassination of our Chief of International Affairs in Thailand on live television, Egypt has refused to recognize the Thai government as anything but an illegitimate terrorist organization. If the court were to argue that the Constantinople Convention of 1888 were to stand, Egypt will contest that under article ten of that document Egypt is permitted to use force to secure the defense of Egypt and the maintenance of public order. Clearly, if any ship were to qualify as a threat to the security and public order of Egypt, it would be a full military fleet from a nation which put a major diplomat to death on live telivision and refused to apologize or offer diplomatic compensation.

This may also be applied to visibly armed Thai ships attempted to pass via innocent passage laws, if the court would decide that the Canal is not Internal waters.

Egypt implores the court to formally advise the dissolution of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. Egypt also implores the court to formally assert Egypt's sovreign right to ownership and control over the Suez Canal as internal waters as used in the Law of the Sea Convention.

In closing: The Thai government's claim that the Suez should be open to the passage of their warships is unfounded and should not be supported.


Best,
Zero Jabour
Chief of International Affairs

Sultanate of Egypt and the Sudan

---