Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Forgotten Ports and Port Installations: Lotus Case, Wimbledon Case, Suez Crisis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Seaports in International Law

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

  • 437 Accesses

Abstract

Ports were involved in some of the most famous international law cases and international crises, but their role was not recognized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Great Britain (1919).

  2. 2.

    The facts of the case are summed up by Permanent Court of International Justice (1923), pp. 18–20.

  3. 3.

    Permanent Court of International Justice (1923), p. 22. The judgement is often cited as evidence of the existence of international treaties establishing objective regimes: Giuliano et alios (1983), p. 412ff., Zamuner (2007), pp. 944, 945.

  4. 4.

    Permanent Court of International Justice (1923), pp. 29, 30.

  5. 5.

    International Committee of the Red Cross (2017), Article 10. The law of maritime neutrality will be further treated under Chap. 9.

  6. 6.

    The facts of the case are summed up by Permanent Court of International Justice (1927), pp. 10, 11.

  7. 7.

    Permanent Court of International Justice (1927), p. 25.

  8. 8.

    Ozcayir (2004), pp. 86, 87.

  9. 9.

    United Nations (1963).

  10. 10.

    Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

  11. 11.

    Chapter 14.

  12. 12.

    Suez Canal Authority (2008). Until 1914, Egypt was de jure a province of the Ottoman Empire, despite having been de facto independent at least since 1805.

  13. 13.

    Article I of the Convention.

  14. 14.

    United Nations (1957).

  15. 15.

    United Nations (1951).

  16. 16.

    Lapidoth (1976).

  17. 17.

    The British Government owned 44 percent of the shares of the company. Deney (1967), p. 294. The corporation survived the crisis and its legal successor Engie (formerly known as GDF Suez) is currently at the head of a corporate group of the same name: Agence France-Presse (2015).

  18. 18.

    United Nations (1955).

  19. 19.

    Article 4 of the Agreement.

  20. 20.

    Article 7 of the Agreement.

  21. 21.

    Annex II, Part E, Article 3(a) of the Agreement.

  22. 22.

    The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice is the British Minister of Justice; before the British constitutional reform of 2005 (by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005), the Lord Chancellor also performed judicial functions. The Law Officers are the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. They tender legal advice to the British Government and oversee its prosecution services.

  23. 23.

    Marston (1988), pp. 782, 783. The British citizens referred to by the Lord Chancellor were the British employees of the Compagnie Universelle. The Egyptian law nationalizing the Canal compelled all the Company employees to carry on their duty, which was considered as some sort of forced labor by the Lord Chancellor.

  24. 24.

    Marston (1988), p. 786.

  25. 25.

    International Court of Justice (2003), and Ago (1980), pp. 67, 68.

References

  • Agence France-Presse. (2015). De la Compagnie universelle du canal de Suez à Engie, 24 April 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ago, R. (1980). Addendum to the eighth report on State responsibility. A/CN.4/318/ADD.5-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deney, N. (1967). L’Égypte et la compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Revue française de science politique, 17, 293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuliano, M., et al. (1983). Diritto internazionale (II ed., Vol. I, p. 265, 266). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Great Britain. (1919). The Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, the Protocol annexed thereto, the Agreement respecting the military occupation of the territories of the Rhine, and the Treaty between France and Great Britain respecting assistance to France in the event of unprovoked aggression by Germany. Signed at Versailles, June 28th, 1919. London: H.M. Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross. (2017). Convention (XIII) concerning the rights and duties of neutral Powers in naval war. The Hague, 18 October 1907. ICRC. https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/240

  • International Court of Justice. (2003). Case concerning oil platforms. Judgment of 6 November 2003. I.C.J. Reports (p. 161).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapidoth, R. (1976). The reopened Suez Canal in International Law. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 4, 149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston, G. (1988). Armed intervention in the 1957 Suez Canal Crisis. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozcayir, O. (2004). Port State Control (II ed.). London-Singapore: Informa Professionals.

    Google Scholar 

  • Permanent Court of International Justice. (1923). Case of the S.S. “Wimbledon”, Series A01, p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Permanent Court of International Justice. (1927). The case of the S.S. “Lotus”, Series A10, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suez Canal Authority. (2008). Costantinople Convention. Suez Canal. http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/sc.aspx?show=37

  • United Nations. (1951). Resolution 95 (1951) adopted by the Security Council at its 549th meeting on 26 July 1951, S/2322.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1955). Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Egypt and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Cairo, 19 October 1954. In United Nations Treaty Series (Vol. 210, p. 22).

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1957). Declaration on the Suez Canal and the arrangements for its operations, Cairo, 24 April 1957. In United Nations Treaty Series (Vol. 269, p. 299).

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1963). Convention on the high seas, Geneva, 29 April 1958. In United Nations Treaty Series (Vol. 450, p. 11).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamuner, E. (2007). I trattati che creano regimi obiettivi nel diritto internazionale. Comunicazioni e Studi, XXIII, 941.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rome, Italy

    Marco Casagrande

Authors
  1. Marco Casagrande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Casagrande .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Casagrande, M. (2017). The Forgotten Ports and Port Installations: Lotus Case, Wimbledon Case, Suez Crisis. In: Seaports in International Law. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60396-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60396-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60395-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60396-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation