Coll 15/3(1) 'Egypt. Abolition of Capitulations in Montreux Conference and Convention 1937' [‎305v] (615/1220)

22
1
«
, • , f pnntprition between ourselves und the hgvpticiii delGgatioii
mind that the point of c n^o remained unknown to the other delegations
p ^
(b) Non-Discrimination. ^
The 0 f the Montrem Convention to the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of
WxCLTLCS•
in - Xhe d i SCUS sions about non-discrimination at the conference were
loo- , me qiscusm beeinning of the conference, in accordance with
difficult throughout At th ^ ^ stated that the Montreux Convention should
paragraph 13 of Uocui - 1 United Kingdom filed an amendment to
contain a provision on the ff'‘"f J h e e xac t terms of paragraph 6 of the annex to
the Egyptian draft conven French delegation (and to a lesser
article 13 of the treaty At he ^me Ume “ conversation with the
extent, the Greek and I^}i“ delegation^ Kuigdom proposal so as to
Egyptians, P 10 P 0S ^ S . CO vered discrimination in fact as well as in law, and
state in terms (i) that in fact nut foreigners into a position relatively
prohibited all legislation which in tact put toie^^ ^ ^ decrees an( i
disadvantageous to t a o ^ ^P^ and ' all administrative action; and (iii) that
ministerial decisio duration in point of time. (Simultaneously, the French
weremakinglemands for permanent assurances of other kinds which are referred
t0 1 for ( i ) t ) would seem probable that the Egyptian delegation in the treaty
its effect, and perhaps, also, in the erroneous belief that it did ^ “ or ® “
embody a general rule of international law binding upon all states. A t -\iomieux
Wvei fhev very soon saw that it was a very far-reaching obligation the most
ofdfi Mo«.» X provision, I. ta. in toMW-gCJ “
the future. All countries to a greater or lesser extent discriminate ag
foreigners in their legislation; and a comprehensive obhgation agai
discrimination, in fact, deprives the State undertaking it of a 'arge P.^ ^
barffainins; power when it wishes to conclude lecipiocal _ i „
Egyptians were thus thoroughly alarmed about the question as soon as w g
KElSTv Bedawi P.sh,, the, ..tot „»d, «o point.; W « J
non-discrimination obligation only applied to fiscal ^ e § ls ^ tlon ’ or( ii n anr
extent that it transcended the ordinary obligations of >tates und n hiicyation
rules of international law) they were only willing to enter into it as a *
for the length of the transitional period. As regards the first of these two p m
although the text of the treaty, and of our amendment which was based o ,
not quite free from ambiguity, the Egyptian delegation agreed to di op
after discussion with us. When Makram Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. was reminded , ligation
had been raised in the treaty negotiations and we had then said that tn & ,
extended to legislation of all kinds and that fiscal legislation was on Y ,
as a particular and most important example, he loyally agreed to a 1 . * • ^
had been said at that time. As regards the duration of the obiiga i ^ a t
treaty, however, he said that he recollected no discussion on this pom , a
the Egyptian delegation interpreted the provision of the treat} as ^
provision forming part of the transitional regime, the length of wine ,
fixed at the Capitulations Conference, together with the remainder ol » on
When we hesitated to commit ourselves as to the interpretation or t e . ^
this point, he stated that the Egyptian delegation were quite willing o 1 een
question of the length and effect of the obligation in the treaty as a ma e
His Majesty’s Government and the Egyptian Government open, bu j- dator y
absolutely refuse to enter into any obligation of this kind with all the cap ^ ^
Powers for longer than the transitional regime. This was repoi e ^
18th April immediately to the Foreign Office and to the Embassy a ^ )nmen t
a telegram in which the Foreign Office were asked to urge the French *0 | n
not to endeavour to insist on permanent guarantees in this or other ma , j n
the telegram the view was expressed (for reasons which were (te ^- 0 . 11 office)
a joint legal opinion by Mr. Besly and Mr. Beckett and sent to the loie D