The Taba Arbitration
- LAST REVIEWED: 22 April 2020
- LAST MODIFIED: 22 April 2020
- DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0208
- LAST REVIEWED: 22 April 2020
- LAST MODIFIED: 22 April 2020
- DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0208
Introduction
The 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty stipulated that the boundary was the “[r]ecognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine.” A disagreement arose between the Egyptian and Israeli surveyors as to the correct location of parts of the mandatory border, however. Egypt claimed that Israel was refraining from complete withdrawal from Sinai, and therefore refused to normalize relations with Israel. The issue also became one of internal Israel politics, with the right wing led by Yitzhak Shamir taking a hard line on the issue and the left-wing Labour Movement led by Shimon Peres being more willing to compromise. Egypt’s claim relied on existing pillars, and Israel relied on the 1906 agreement between Britain, as the administrator of Egypt, and the Ottoman Empire, which ruled Palestine. The majority award of the Tribunal held that it would decide the location of the pillars “as it was demarcated, consolidated, and commonly understood during the period of the Mandate,” which was “the critical period.” As to the site advanced by Egypt, the Award admitted that “there is no evidence with respect to the erection of this pillar in 1907–07 nor with regard to its existence in the following years”; however, “throughout the critical period until a time after 1967 there was a boundary pillar at the location which during this whole period was considered to be a boundary pillar.” “Where the States concerned have, over a period of more than fifty years, identified a marker as a boundary pillar and acted upon that basis, it is no longer open to one of the parties or to third states to challenge that long held assumption on the basis of an alleged error.” “The principle of the stability of boundaries, requires that boundary markers, long accepted as such by the States concerned, should be respected and not open to challenge indefinitely on the basis of error.” The dissenting opinion of Ruth Lapidoth held that that “Egypt and Great Britain adopted the boundary line of the 1906 Agreement, without reference to any changes on the ground which may have occurred subsequent to that Agreement.” According to Lapidoth, “The majority erroneously attributes stability to boundary markers whereas the principle of stability and permanence applies not to markers but to boundaries lawfully established and recognized.” Since the arbitrators were not authorized to choose a location for a pillar not advanced by the parties, the final pillar on the seashore was not determined and, after the arbitration was concluded, the parties negotiated its location.
Official Arbitration Documents
The Inner Cabinet Decision on Taba (1986) gives the political background to the decision to go to arbitration. The Arbitration Compromis (1986) sets out the structure, functions, and limitations of the Arbitration Panel. The Memorial, Counter-Memorial, and Rejoinder of Israel (1987, 1988) set out the case for Israel. The Memorial, Counter-Memorial, and Rejoinder of Egypt (1987, 1988) set out the case for Egypt. The Award of the Egypt-Israel Arbitration Tribunal (1988) details the reasoning and decision of the majority and the Dissenting Opinion of Ruth Lapidoth—Award of the Egypt-Israel Arbitration Tribunal. The Egypt-Israel Agreement on Taba (1989) settled the part of the dispute that was beyond the authority of the Arbitration Tribunal, namely the border from the last pillar, No. 91, till the sea shore.
Arbitration Compromis: Case concerning the location of boundary markers in Taba between Egypt and Israel, 11 September 1986. “Award of the Egypt Israel Arbitration Tribunal.” International Legal Materials 27 (1988): 1427, 1432–1433.
The compromis follows fairly closely the model compromis of the Permanent Court of International Arbitration, but it contains two unusual clauses. The Arbitration was to be suspended to allow an attempt at conciliation, and the arbitrators were not authorized to select a location for boundary pillars other than locations proposed by the parties themselves.
“Award of the Egypt-Israel Arbitration Tribunal.” International Legal Materials 27 (1988): 1427, 1432–1433.
The majority decision of the Tribunal accepted Egypt’s claimed position for the final border pillar of the British Mandatory period, but left open the location of the border where it reaches the sea shore.
“Dissenting Opinion of Ruth Lapidoth—Award of the Egypt-Israel Arbitration Tribunal,” 133–213.
In her dissenting opinion, Ruth Lapidoth wrote, “The majority erroneously attributes stability to boundary markers whereas the principle of stability and permanence applies not to markers but to boundaries lawfully established and recognized.”
Inner Cabinet Decision on Taba, 12 January 1986.
This Israeli cabinet decision gives Israel’s position on the political background to the decision to go to arbitration with Egypt.
“Israel-Egypt Agreement on Taba.” International Law Reports 80 (1989): 694–695.
The Arbitration Tribunal did not take any decision as regards the route of the boundary from the final pillar to the Gulf of Aqaba. It was left to the parties to negotiate this line. They did so and reached an agreement concerning access to the Taba area and to Southern Sinai.
Memorial of the Arab Republic of Egypt: Pt. I–V (Vol. 1), VI–VII (Vol. 2), map atlas, + annexes (3 vols.), 1987. Counter-Memorial of the Arab Republic of Egypt: [Text] + Documentary annexes, 1987. Rejoinder of the Arab Republic of Egypt: [Text] + Documentary annexes, 1988. Law Library, Hebrew University Jerusalem, Catalogue Number 341.222(62:E1)/EGY.
The pleadings of Egypt are set out in full with annexes containing copies of documents and maps. They have not been published but are available to the public in a number of libraries, including the library of the Law Faculty of the Hebrew University Jerusalem.
Memorial of Israel, text, annexes + maps, 13 May 1987. Counter-Memorial of Israel, text + annexes, 12 October 1987. Rejoinder of Israel, text + annexes, 1 February 1988. Law Library, Hebrew University Jerusalem, Catalogue number 41.222(62:E1)/EGY.
The pleadings of Israel are set out in full with annexes containing copies of documents and maps. They have not been published but are available to the public in a number of libraries, including the library of the Law Faculty of the Hebrew University Jerusalem.
Srebro, Haim. “The Egypt-Israel Agreement on the Location of the Final Marker on the Gulf of Aqaba, 26 February 1989.” In The Boundaries of Israel Today. By Haim Srebro. 126. Tel Aviv: Survey of Israel, 2012.
Surveyors from Egypt and Israel recorded the marking of the location of the agreed marker on the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba. The Legal Advisor of the US State Department, Abraham D. Sofaer, signed as a witness.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login.
How to Subscribe
Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here.
Article
- Act of State Doctrine
- Africa and Intellectual Property Rights for Plant Varietie...
- African Approaches to International Law
- African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights and the Af...
- Africa’s International Intellectual Property Law Regimes
- Africa’s International Investment Law Regimes
- Agreements, Bilateral and Regional Trade
- Agreements, Multilateral Environmental
- Aliens
- Applicable Law in Investment Agreements
- Archipelagic States
- Arctic Region
- Armed Opposition Groups
- Aut Dedere Aut Judicare
- Balance of Power
- Bandung Conference, The
- Boundaries
- British Mandate of Palestine and International Law, The
- Children's Rights
- China, Judicial Application of International Law in
- China, Law of the Sea in
- Civil Service, International
- Civil-Military Relations
- Codification
- Cold War International Law
- Collective Security
- Command Responsibility
- Common Heritage of Mankind
- Complementarity Principle
- Compliance in International Law
- Conspiracy/Joint Criminal Enterprise
- Constitutional Law, International
- Consular Relations
- Contemporary Catholic Approaches
- Continental Shelf, Idea and Limits of the
- Cooperation in Criminal Matters, Cross-Border
- Countermeasures
- Courts, International
- Crimes against Humanity
- Criminal Law, International
- Cultural Rights
- Cyber Espionage
- Cyber Warfare
- Debt, Sovereign
- Decolonization in International Law
- Democracy
- Development Law, International
- Disarmament in International Law
- Discrimination
- Disputes, Peaceful Settlement of
- Drugs, International Regulation, and Criminal Liability
- Early 19th Century, 1789-1870
- Ecological Restoration and International Law
- Economic Law, International
- Effectiveness and Evolution in Treaty Interpretation
- Enforced Disappearances in International Law
- Enforcement of Human Rights
- Environmental Compliance Mechanisms
- Environmental Institutions, International
- Environmental Law, International
- Estoppel
- European Arrest Warrant
- Exclusive Economic Zone
- Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties
- Fascism and International Law
- Feminist Approaches to International Law
- Financial Law, International
- Forceful Intervention for Protection of Human Rights in Af...
- Foreign Investment
- Fragmentation
- Freedom of Expression
- French Revolution
- Gender and International Law, Theoretical and Methodologic...
- Gender and International Security
- General Customary Law
- General Principles of Law
- Genocide
- Georgia and International Law
- Grotius, Hugo
- Habeas Corpus
- Hijaz and International Law, The
- History of International Law, 1550–1700
- Hostilities, Direct Participation in
- Human Rights
- Human Rights and Regional Protection, Relativism and Unive...
- Human Rights, European Court of
- Human Rights, Foundations of
- Human Rights Law, History of
- Human Trafficking
- Hybrid International Criminal Tribunals
- Immunities
- Immunity, Sovereign
- in Latin America and the Caribbean, International Legal Pr...
- Indigenous Peoples
- Individual Criminal Responsibility
- Institutional Law
- Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and Inte...
- International and Non-International Armed Conflict, Detent...
- International Committee of the Red Cross
- International Community
- International Court of Justice
- International Criminal Court, The
- International Criminal Law, Complicity in
- International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
- International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ...
- International Fisheries Law
- International Humanitarian Law
- International Humanitarian Law, China and
- International Humanitarian Law, Targeting in
- International Intellectual Property Law, China and
- International Investment Agreements, Fair and Equitable Tr...
- International Investment Arbitration
- International Investment Law, China and
- International Investment Law, Expropriation in
- International Law, Aggression in
- International Law, Amnesty and
- International Law and Economic Development
- International Law, Anthropology and
- International Law, Big Data and
- International Law, Climate Change and
- International Law, Derogations and Reservations in
- International Law, Dispute Settlement in
- International Law, Ecofeminism and
- International Law, Espionage in
- International Law, Hegemony in
- International Law in Cyberspace, China and
- International Law in Greek
- International Law in Italian
- International Law in Northeast Asia
- International Law in Portuguese
- International Law in Turkish
- International Law, Legitimacy in
- International Law, Marxist Approaches to
- International Law, Military Intervention in
- International Law, Money Laundering in
- International Law, Monism and Dualism in
- International Law, Peacekeeping in
- International Law, Proportionality in
- International Law, Reasonableness in
- International Law, Recognition in
- International Law, Self-Determination in
- International Law, State Responsibility in
- International Law, State Succession in
- International Law, the State in
- International Law, The Turkish-Greek Population Exchange a...
- International Law, the Turn to History in
- International Law, The United States and
- International Law, Trade and Development in
- International Law, Unequal Treaties in
- International Law, Use of Force in
- International Legal Personality
- International Regulation of the Internet
- International Relations Study in China, International Law ...
- International Rule of Law, An
- International Territorial Administration
- International Trade and Human Rights
- Intervention, Humanitarian
- Investment Protection Treaties
- Investor-State Conciliation and Mediation
- Iran and International Law
- Iraq War, Britain and the
- Islamic Cooperation, International Law and the Organizatio...
- Islamic International Law
- Islamic Law and Human Rights
- Islands
- Jerusalem
- Jurisdiction
- Jurisprudence (Judicial Law-Making)
- Jus Cogens
- Just War
- Landlocked Countries and the Law of the Sea
- Law of the Sea
- Law of Treaties, The
- Law-Making by Non-State Actors
- League of Nations, The
- Lebanon, Special Tribunal for
- Legal Pluralism
- Legal Status of Military Forces Abroad
- Liability for International Environmental Harm
- Liberation and Resistance Movements
- Mandates in International Law
- Maritime Delimitation
- Martens Clause
- Medieval International Law
- Mens Rea, International Crimes
- Middle East Boundaries and State Formation
- Migration
- Military Necessity
- Military Occupation
- Minorities
- Modes of Participation
- Most-Favored-Nation Clauses
- Multinational Corporations in International Law
- Nationality and Statelessness
- Natural Law
- Neutrality
- New Approaches to International Law
- New Haven School of International Law, The
- Non liquet
- Noninternational Armed Conflict (“Civil War”)
- Nonstate Actors
- Nuclear Non-Proliferation
- Nuremberg Trials
- Organizations, International
- Pacifism in International Law
- Palestine (and the Israel Question)
- Peace Treaties
- Piracy
- Political Science, International Law and
- Positivism
- Private Military and Security Companies
- Protection, Diplomatic
- Public Interest, Human Rights, and Foreign Investment
- Queering International Law
- Rational Choice Theory
- Recognition of Foreign Penal Judgments
- Refugee Law, China and
- Refugees
- Rendition, Extraterritorial Abduction, and Extraordinary R...
- Reparations
- Russian Approaches to International Law
- Sanctions, International
- Sanctions, International
- Secession
- Self-Defense
- Slavery
- Soft Law
- Space Law
- Spanish School of International Law (c. 16th and 17th Cent...
- Sports Law, International
- State of Necessity
- Superior Orders
- Taba Arbitration, The
- Teaching International Law
- Territorial Title
- Terrorism
- The 1948 Arab-Israeli Conflict and International Law
- The Ottoman Empire and International Law
- Theory, Critical International Legal
- Tibet
- Tokyo Trials, The
- Torture
- Transnational Constitutionalism, Africa and
- Transnational Corruption
- Treaty Interpretation
- Ukrainian Approaches
- UN Partition Plan for Palestine and International Law, The
- UN Security Council, Women and the
- Underwater Cultural Heritage
- Unilateral Acts
- United Nations and its Principal Organs, The
- Universal Jurisdiction
- Uti Possidetis Iuris
- Vatican and the Holy See
- Victims’ Rights, International Criminal Law, and Proceedin...
- War Crimes
- Watercourses, International
- Western Sahara
- World Trade Organization Law, China and