Security Council

Discussion of the complaint by Israel against Egypt concerning Egyptian restrictions on the passage of ships trading with Israel through the Suez Canal and Egyptian interference with shipping proceeding to the Israel port of Elath on the Gulf of Aqaba, which was begun on February 5, 1954, continued during the period under review. A second item on the agenda of the Council was the complaint by Egypt against Israel of violation of the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement at the demilitarized zone of El-Auja. Continuing the explanation of Egypt's position, Mahmoud Azmi (Egypt) on March 12 presented at length historical, psychological, legal and political considerations to support his argument that the Council should recover its resolution of September 1, 1951, in which it called on Egypt to terminate restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping and goods through the Suez Canal and find some other means of dealing with the situation. After alleging that 114 persons had been killed in territory under Egyptian control and 60 persons injured since 1951 as a result of Israel violations of the Armistice Agreement, Mr. Azmi held that the procedure followed by Egyptian authorities did not constitute a military blockade but was one regarded in international law as appropriate for exercise of the right of visit and search; cited several judicial opinions in support of his argument that an armistice did not end a state of war and that a state of war did not end until a peace treaty had been ratified; quoted Article 51 of the Charter to prove that United Nations Members had the inherent right of self-defense; argued that the Suez Canal Convention signed at Constantinople in 1888 provided Egypt with the right to take all useful measures in the canal to ensure the defense of the country and public order; and declared that, concerning the Israel complaint of measures taken by Egypt at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, international law affirmed that gulfs, including international gulfs, were subject to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the coastal states and were accorded the same treatment as national and territorial waters.