Statements by Representatives of the Maritime Powers at the United Nations on Freedom of Navigation

In the protracted discussions concerning Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula following the Sinai War, Israel conditioned its withdrawal on an international recognition of the freedom of navigation in the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal. This became part of the assumptions and expectations of Israel when, on 1 March 1957, Foreign Minister Golda Meir announced Israel's decision to withdraw (see Section IX, Document 26). The decision was supported by a number of maritime nations whose representatives in the UN rose to express their respective Governments' policy on this issue in the course of debates in March and April 1957. Excerpts follow:

From a statement by Mr. Georges Picot of France, at the UN General Assembly, 1 March 1957

"The French Government considers that the Gulf of Aqaba, on the one hand because of the fact that its coast belongs to four different States, constitutes international waters. Therefore, we consider that, in accordance with international law, freedom of navigation must be ensured in this Gulf and through the straits which lead into it. Under these circumstances, no country has the right to prevent free and innocent passage of ships of whatever nationality or type. The French Government, for its part, has the intention of making effective use of its right of free navigation in the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran. It considers that any obstruction put forth to free passage would be in contradiction to international law and would, in consequence, open the possibility of resort to measures which are authorized under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. In this connection, it would specify that none of the littoral States of the Gulf of Aqaba, in its view, is in a state of belligerency with any other State, and that in this connection the position of Israel is in perfect conformity with international law. Moreover, the French Government considers that Resolution II (A/Res. 461) adopted by the General Assembly on 2 February 1957, as well as the Secretary-General's report of 22 February 1957, confers a mission on the United Nations forces to occupy, as soon as the Israel troops withdraw, the positions presently occupied by these forces along the Gulf of Aqaba and to be maintained there until a settlement accepted by both parties or an international agreement determining the system of navigation in these free waters has barred any risk of recourse to acts of belligerency."

From a statement by Mr. Canas of Costa Rica at the UN General Assembly, 1 March 1957

"We started from the premise that any war, any state of belligerency, is by definition bilateral, that it is not possible to conceive of war or belligerence as being merely unilateral, and that consequently the General Assembly, in taking up the regrettable events which took place last October, could not act advisedly unless it kept before its eyes the whole panorama of events, the whole unfolding perspective of events ... My delegation wishes to give its support to the statements made here by the representatives of the United States and France regarding freedom of navigation and the other points of a legal nature which have been raised here. All these statements are in accordance with the principles of international coexistence in which my country believes, principles which in our judgment are reflected throughout the United Nations Charter."

From a statement by Commander Noble of the United Kingdom, at the UN General Assembly, 4 March 1957

"I listened the other day with great attention when the representative of India, Mr. Krishna Menon, argued that the Straits of Tiran were not an international waterway. Although I admired the ingenuity of his reasoning and the wealth of his examples, I fear that I could not follow him to his conclusions. For he overlooked one fact simple enough in itself but, as I see it, essential to consideration of this problem: the fact that unlike the fjords of Norway or the Hudson Bay in Canada, or the Hudson River here in New York, or any of the other instances which Mr. Menon quoted the Gulf of Aqaba is not only bounded at its narrow point of entry, that is, the Straits of Tiran, by two different countries, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but contains at its head the ports of two further countries: Jordan and Israel. This simple, undeniable fact is in itself enough to put it in a different category from any of the inland waters mentioned by Mr. Krishna Menon. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that the Straits of Tiran must be regarded as an international waterway, through which the vessels of all nations have a right of passage. Her Majesty's Government will assert this right on behalf of all British shipping. They are prepared to join with others to secure general recognition of this right. Now we all, of course, assume that when Israel's forces are withdrawn from the Sharm el-Sheikh area, units of the United Nations Emergency Force will be stationed there, and there is no reason to think that any attempt will be made to interfere with free and innocent passage through the Straits. As Mr. Lodge said on Friday: 'Once Israel has completed its withdrawal in accordance with the resolutions of the General Assembly, and in view of the measures taken by the United Nations to deal with the situation, there is no basis for either party to the Armistice Agreement to assert or exercise any belligerent rights.' "

From a statement by Dr. Vitetti of Italy, at the UN General Assembly, 4 March 1957

"As far, in particular, as free navigation in the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran is concerned, I do not need to restate here that we consider that the Gulf of Aqaba is an international waterway and that no nation has the right to prevent free and innocent passage in the Gulf of Aqaba and through the straits giving access thereto."

From a statement by Dr. Schurmann of The Netherlands, at the UN General Assembly, 4 March 1957

"The Netherlands Government is in full agreement with the statements made by Israel, the United States, France and a number of other countries to the effect that passage through the Straits of Tiran should be free, open and unhindered for the ships of all nations. My Government bases its opinion on the following reasons. First, the Gulf of Aqaba, inasmuch as it is bordered by four different States and has a width in excess of the three-mile strip of territorial waters of the four littoral States on either side, is Linder the rules of international law to be regarded as part of the open seas. Second, the Straits of Tiran consequently are, in the legal sense, straits connecting two open seas, normally used for international navigation. Third, in regard to such straits, there is a right of free passage even if the straits are so narrow that they fall entirely within the territorial waters of one or more States. This rule was acknowledged by the International Court of Justice in the case of the Corfu Channel and also by the International Law Commission in its report of 1956. Fourth, if a strait falls entirely within the territorial waters of one or more of the littoral States, there is still a right of innocent passage, but then the littoral States have the right, if necessary, to verify the innocent character of the passage. Fifth, this right of verification, however, does not exist in those cases where the strait connects two parts of the open sea. It must, therefore, be concluded that all States have the right of free and unhampered passage for their vessels through the Straits of Tiran."

From a statement by Sir Leslie Munro of New Zealand, at the UN General Assembly, 4 March 1957

"The New Zealand Government shares the view expressed by the United Kingdom and other Governments that the Straits of Tiran must be regarded as an international waterway through which the vessels of all nations have a right of passage. We believe that the declarations made by the United States, United Kingdom and other leading maritime Powers of their readiness to assert this right on behalf of their shipping, and to join with others to secure a general recognition of this right, point to a solution in respect of the Gulf of Aqaba which should satisfy Israel's legitimate interests."

From a statement by Dr. Walker of Australia, at the UN General Assembly, 4 March 1957

"In particular I am instructed by my Government to state that it is the view of the Australian Government that the Straits of Tiran must be regarded as an international waterway through which vessels of all nations have a right of passage."

From a statement by Mr. van Langenhove of Belgium, at the UN General Assembly. 4 March 1957

"As I stated on 19 January and confirmed on I February, we share the view that the international nature of the Gulf of Aqaba implies the right of innocent passage through the Straits of Tiran and in the gulf itself, in conformity with the recognized rules of international law. I recalled on I February that the parties to the armistice agreement must, on the basis of one of its basic provisions, refrain reciprocally and completely from any act of belligerence. This is moreover an overriding principle of the Charter, except, of course, with respect to the right of self-defence in case of armed attack."

From a statement by Mr. Pearson of Canada, at the UN General Assembly, 4 March 1957

"Concerning the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran, I suggested then that there should be no interference with innocent passage through those waters, nor the assertion of any claim to belligerent rights there. I was not suggesting, and I am not now suggesting, that legal rights in those waters should be determined by this Assembly in any particular way, or that this determination, which Would have to be made by a legal body, should be prejudiced by its. I do not conceive it to be the function of this Assembly to decide legal questions. What I do suggest, however, is that in order to maintain a situation of peace and quiet, in order to minimize the chance of a new outbreak of fighting, the Assembly should recommend, and the parties should agree, as a political and not a legal act, that there should be no interference with tile innocent passage of ships through the waters concerned. That would be one way of bringing about an improved situation in the area. Does any Member of this Assembly believe that interference with such innocent passage will not provoke conflict, and thereby threaten the peace of the area? Is it not then our ditty to do what we can to avoid such a result'? If we feel that way, then, in my view, we do not discharge that duty merely by coming to certain conclusions regarding the international legal aspects of the question which remain to be determined."

From a statement by Mr. Engen of Norway, at the UN General Assembly, 4 March 1957

"With respect to the shipping in the Straits of Tiran, it is the view of the Government of Norway that these waters constitute an international waterway and that no State bordering on this waterway should undertake measures which would hamper the freedom of innocent passage of ships of any nation in these waters. This view, we bold, is fully consistent with accepted practices and principles of international law and, consequently, they are in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

From a statement by Mr. Sandler of Sweden, at the UN General Assembly, 4 March 1957

"My Government attaches great importance to the principle of free navigation and considers it essential that this principle be held in respect. This implies, in the opinion of my Government, inter alia that the right of innocent passage through the straits connecting the Red Sea and the international waters in the Gulf of Aqaba should be recognized. Furthermore, the Swedish delegation is of the opinion that the scrupulous observance of the armistice agreement excludes any active act of belligerency on land, in the air or on the sea."

From a statement by Dr. Garin of Portugal, at the UN General Assembly, 4 March 1957

"On this occasion we wish also to state that the assumptions and expectations with which the Government of Israel has announced its important decision are considered by my delegation, in a general way, as understandable and falling within the wide context of the recommendations made by the Secretary-General in his reports or of previous resolutions of the Assembly, namely resolution II of 2 February last, both as regards the question of innocent passage in the Gulf of Aqaba and Straits of Tiran, and the temporary arrangements for the maintenance of peaceful conditions in the Gaza Strip."

From a statement by Mr. Eskelund of Denmark, at the UN General Assembly, 4 March 1957

"In the view of the Danish Government, the Straits of Tiran must be regarded as an international waterway through which vessels of all nations have a right of passage. Several countries border on the Gulf of Aqaba and have ports therein. Therefore, in the opinion of the Danish Government, the Straits of Tiran cannot be treated differently from straits which are generally recognized as international straits."

From a statement by Mr. Thors of Iceland, at the UN General Assembly, 8 March 1957

"With regard to the Gulf of Aqaba, my Government wishes to associate itself with the declarations made by many delegations here that the Gulf and the Straits of Tiran should be open for international navigation and that vessels of all nations have a right of passage."

Source: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs