مجموعة ٣/١٥(١) "مصر. إلغاء الامتيازات في مؤتمر واتفاقية مونترو ١٩٣٧" [ظ‎‎٣‎٠‎٥] (١٢٢٠/٦١٥)

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 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