埃及移轉Tiran 與 Sanafir島給沙烏地

【Comment】

在民族主義越來越強的現在，割讓領土的案例越來越少。但，多以「劃界」為名義為之。

在這意義下，江澤民割了200萬平方公里給俄國。算是「賣國」的最大手筆。

領土主權移轉

1.     要有法律程序與形式

2.     要有條約為形式，明確記載權利義務的轉讓。

3.     要經過有權者雙方的國會通過，要不然不合國家要有「確定領土」的條件，從而也無法確定「法域」。

4.     要當時為社會所週知（甚至公眾辯論、國會辯論與表決），不得回溯、不能密約。

沙烏地說：此為沙國領土，埃及只是自1950年起應沙國要求代為保護。

埃及說：兩島主權自1906年起便屬於埃及，遠比沙國發現的時間更早。

In 1950, Saudi Arabia's founder King Abdulaziz Al Saud had requested Egypt to protect those islands which has been the case since then.

Drawing up the maritime border for both countries had been in progress for over six years.

"This enables both countries to benefit from the exclusive economic zone for each, with whatever resources and treasures they contain," the statement said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-saudi-idUSKCN0X60UK

島上無常住居民，僅有埃及軍事哨所和多國觀察員部隊的觀察員駐紮。

雖說是戰略要地，但以色列具有領海的「無害通過權」。此事經過1951年9月1日聯合國安理會S/2322號決議確認。

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/tiran-island.htm

中文報導說「最高憲法法院」，察看英文the Supreme Administrative Court.，應該為「最高行政法院」。

割島換金援 埃及總統准了    自由20170626

在反對派的批評與抗議聲中，埃及總統塞西二十四日批准一項具爭議的協議，同意將紅海的兩座無人居住小島主權移交給沙烏地阿拉伯，藉此鞏固沙國持續提供埃及金援與支持。

埃及內閣發表聲明指出，塞西已批准埃及與沙國之間的「海事劃界協議」。埃及國會上週通過這項在去年四月八日簽署的協議，同意將位於紅海上的提蘭與沙那費兩島主權移交給沙國，兩國還同意成立金額達一百六十億美元的投資基金。 塞西雖可藉此鞏固沙國支持，但須面對國人抗議與法律訴訟。塞西並未立即就此事發言，但政府律師夏瑞夫說，讓島令如今已是法律，提蘭與沙那費的主權已屬於沙國。

位於紅海頂端的提蘭與沙那費雖無人居住，但因鄰近約旦與以色列的港口，而被視為具有戰略重要性。埃及與沙國政府均視該兩島為沙國領土，埃及只是自一九五○年起應沙國要求代為保護。不過，不少埃及人無法接受此說，堅持兩島主權自一九○六年起便屬於埃及，遠比沙國發現的時間更早。

四月有大批不滿讓島的埃及民眾走上街頭，高呼自二○一一年「阿拉伯之春」民主運動後便鮮少聽聞的「民眾要這個政權倒台」口號。

埃及各級法院對島嶼主權移交協議效力的裁示不一，有些表示支持，有些則認為無效，但埃及國會堅稱，按照憲法規定，讓島屬於國會管轄範疇，暗示法院無權過問。

埃及最高憲法？法庭二十一日下令停止所有針對兩島主權移交協議的裁示，靜待最高憲法法庭就該協議之合憲性做出決定再說。但最高憲法法庭並未訂定宣判日期，或甚至未就此進行審議。兩島主權移交協議在埃及訴諸司法令沙國不悅，一度導致兩國關係緊繃。

Timeline of 2016 Saudi-Egyptian maritime demarcation agreement

• 8 April – Agreement signed

President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi and Saudi King Salman bin Abdelaziz Al-Saud attended the signing ceremony of several cooperation agreements in various fields, according to the State Information Services (SIS).  At the bottom of several agreements, SIS mentions that “Prime Minister Sherif Ismail and Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman bin Abdelaziz signed an agreement on maritime border demarcation between Egypt and Saudi Arabia”.

Amid little state transparency, concerns regarding the agreement are voiced on social media networks and in the media.

• 9 April – Agreement details revealed

In its second press release for the day, the cabinet states that among the important achievements of the Saudi king’s visit “there was also the signing of the maritime border agreement, which would enable the two states to economically benefit from the region”.

The cabinet declares that Tiran and Sanafir islands were relocated to be inside Saudi Arabia’s regional waters. This is the first official acknowledgment of the cessation of the islands.

The cabinet states that the two states were negotiating the issue for more than six years through a committee, which based its decision on letters exchanged between the two countries. The letters include a request sent by the Saudi king in 1950 demanding Egypt handle the protection of the islands.

• 10 April – Human rights lawyer Khaled Ali and others file a lawsuit before the State Council demanding the annulment of the maritime border agreement.
• 13 April – As criticism mounts on the state’s handling of the issue and debate increases, President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi holds a meeting with a number of “representatives of society” in Itihadiya Palace, in which he calls on their allegiance, reaffirms Saudi sovereignty over the islands, and prevents discussion from preceding on the issue.

The regime begins to crackdown on dissidents, which includes arresting activists.

• 15 April – Nationwide demonstrations take place against the maritime demarcation agreement. Protesters chant against Al-Sisi and maintain that the islands are Egyptian. One of the largest protests in Cairo takes place at the Press Syndicate.

            More arrests take place, followed by trials.

• 21 April – A local newspaper leaks comments from a meeting between Al-Sisi and Ministry of Interior officials, reporting that the president ordered a tight grip so that “the incidents of last week are not repeated”.

A statement from the presidency denies the media report.

The same night, police storm cafes and carry out random arrests, in addition to raiding the houses of several political activists.

The raids continue the next day.

• 25 April – Protests take place once more, resulting in a high number of arrests of youth and journalists. Hundreds of youth face trials amid public controversy.
• 14-15 May – Prison terms issued for groups of protesters.
• 23 May – Political parties launch sit-in in protest of agreement.
• 25 May – Court reverses some of the prison verdicts, but refuses to drop heavy fines.
• 30 May – Trial contesting islands demarcation unfolds as the government is fined for not presenting required documents to the court.
• 5 June – Acquittals in protest cases begin.
• 14 June – Trial continues for contestation lawsuits, as lawyers present documents proving Egypt’s sovereignty over the islands.
• 21 June – State Council verdict annuls agreement, affirms Egyptian sovereignty over the islands.

Egypt/Saudi Arabia: Bilateral Agreement on Maritime Demarcation Approved by Ministers

(Jan. 12, 2017) On December 29, 2016, the Council of Ministers of Egypt approved a maritime demarcation agreement between the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  According to the agreement, Saudi Arabia will assume control over two islands in the Red Sea that have been under the control of Egypt.  Following its approval of the agreement, the Council of Ministers referred it to the Parliament for further debate. (Cabinet Approves Red Sea Islands Demarcation Deal, Sends Agreement to Parliament, DAILY NEWS EGYPT (Dec. 29, 2016).)

On January 2, 2017, the Judicial Committee of the Parliament declared that it had received the provisions of the agreement from the Council of Ministers and announced that it would disseminate the agreement among the Members of Parliament for open discussion. (Demarcation Agreement Will Be Discussed with Full Transparency: Parliament’s Judicial Committee, DAILY NEWS EGYPT (Jan. 2, 2017).)

Background

The agreement has been the subject of public debate since April 2016, when the Egyptian media announced that it had been approved by the government.  A group of Egyptian lawyers, as plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit that same month before the State Council Administrative Court (a first instance court) challenging the legality of the agreement.  In June 2016, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs by abolishing the agreement and ordered the Egyptian state to continue to exercise all acts of sovereignty over the two islands. (George Sadek, Egypt: Repeal of Maritime Demarcation Agreement with Saudi Arabia, GLOBAL LEGAL MONITOR (June 23, 2016).)

Following the decision of the first instance court, the Egyptian government filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.  The Supreme Administrative Court has scheduled a final hearing on January 16, 2017, to render its final decision on this matter. (Administrative Court Postpones Final Verdict on Red Sea Islands Deal to 16 January, DAILY NEWS EGYPT (Dec. 19, 2016).)

Reaction to Referral of the Agreement to the Legislature

Lawyers and human rights activists, such as Malek Al-Adly, one of the lawyers who challenged the legality of the agreement, consider the Council of Ministers’ action of sending the agreement to the Parliament to be a violation of Egyptian law.  Al-Adly argues that the Council of Ministers does not have the legal authority to refer the agreement to the Parliament, because the legality of the agreement is being disputed in court. (Sending Red Sea Islands Agreement to Parliament Is a Violation: Malek Adly, DAILY NEWS EGYPT (Dec. 30, 2016).)

Al-Adly also claims that the Egyptian government failed to submit to the Administrative Court any documents supporting the government’s claim hat the agreement is legal. He further suggests that the government’s referral of the agreement to the legislative branch defies the decision issued by the first instance court that had declared the agreement to be illegal. (Id.) Finally, Al-Adly says that the referral is directly in violation of article 123 of the Penal Code, which obligates public servants to follow all court decisions. (Id.; Law No. 58 of 1937 (Criminal Code), as last amended by Law No. 95 of 2003, 25 AL-JARIDAH AL-RASMIYAH [OFFICIAL GAZETTE] (June 19, 2003), MOHAMOON.COM (in Arabic).)