Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2016
The strait of Bab al-Mandeb, “the gate of tears” or “the gate of the wailing yard”, joins the high seas of the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean to those of the Red Sea. The name is primarily used by geographers to designate the narrowest part of the passage, between Ras Bab al-Mandeb on the Asian shore and Ras Siyan in Africa. At this point it is bordered on the east by the Yemen Arab Republic (Northern Yemen) and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (Southern Yemen), and in the west by the Republic of Djibouti (formerly the French Territory of the Afars and Issas). About 14 miles farther north, where the Red Sea (or, for that matter, the strait) is nearly 20 miles wide, lies the coast of Ethiopia (the province of Eritrea). All the riparians claim a territorial sea of 12 miles, and the Yemen Arab Republic, as well as the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, also claim jurisdiction for certain purposes in an additional zone of 6 miles.
On the eastern shore of the strait of Bab al-Mandeb lies the peninsula of Ras Bab al-Mandeb, which is about 6–10 km. wide. It consists of rocky, volcanic plains with several hills of 200–300 m. The coast of Ras Bab al-Mandeb is surrounded by coral reefs of a width of up to 1500 m. The border between North Yemen and South Yemen passes down the middle of Ras Bab al-Mandeb.
1 On the geographical features of the strait, see R.H. Kennedy, “A Brief Geographical and Hydrographical Study of Straits which Constitute Routes for International Traffic” U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/6 and Add. 1, of 23 October 1957, in Official Records of the [First] U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol. 1, 1958, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 13/37, pp. 114–164, at p. 115 and 145; U.S. Naval Oceanographie Office, Sailing Directions for the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden (5th ed., H.O. 61, 1965) sec. 6BGoogle Scholar; Great Britain, Hydrographic Office, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Pilot (10th ed., 1955) 111–119Google Scholar; Ayalon, A., Bab al-Mandeb: A Struggle for Influence and Power, 1945–1973, (mimeographed M.A. Thesis of Tel Aviv University, The Shiloah Centre for Middle Eastern and African Studies, 1974, in Hebrew) 1–5.Google Scholar No information about the claims to territorial sea of the very new Republic of Djibouti (which was granted independence in June 1977) was available to the author. It is therefore presumed that, in this respect, the new Republic adheres to the claim of its predecessor—the French Territory of the Afars and Issas.
2 Farer, T.J., War Clouds on the Horn of Africa: A Crisis for Detente (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York and Washington, D.C., 1976) 127 and 132.Google Scholar
3 See Lapidoth, R., “Freedom of Navigation and the New Law of the Sea” (1975) 10 Is.L.R. 456–502, at 488–492.Google Scholar
4 IMCO Resolution A. 284 (VIII) adopted on 20 November 1973, including annex on “Revised General Provisions for Adoption, Terminology, Symbols, Methods, and General Principles of Ships' Routeing,” IMCO Doc. A. VIII/Res. 284, 19 December 1973, at p. 41. See also IMCO, Ships' Routeing and Traffic Separation Schemes: Areas to be Avoided by Certain Ships (1971) 54.Google Scholar
5 A. Ayalon, supra n. 1, at 103–104.
6 Abir, M., “Sharm al Sheikh—Bab al-Mandeb: The Strategic Balance and Israel's Southern Approaches” Jerusalem Papers on Peace Problems, no. 5 (The Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1974) 19–20.Google Scholar
7 Ibid., at 17.
8 Ibid.
9 Herzog, Ch., The War of Atonement (Jerusalem, Steimatzky, 1975) 267.Google Scholar
10 Rousseau, Ch., “Revendication de souveraineté sur le détroit de Bab el-Mandeb (26 octobre 1973),” Chronique des faits internationaux (1974) 78 Revue Générale de Droit International Public 1196–1197.Google Scholar
11 Gilbert, M., Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (New York, MacMillan, 1975) 95Google Scholar; Shimoni, Y., Levine, E., Rabinovich, I. and Shaked, H., Political Dictionary of the Middle East in the 20th Century (Quadrangle, The New York Times Book Company, 1974) 442.Google Scholar The agreement itself did not deal with the blockade; for text of the agreement, see U.N. Doc. S/11056/Add. 3, Annex (1973), published also in Moore, J.N., ed., The Arab-Israeli Conflict (Princeton University Press, 1974) vol. III, 1149–1150.Google Scholar
12 On the régime of straits, see Brüel, E., International Straits: A Treatise on International Law (Copenhagen, Nyt nordisk Forlag, 1947)Google Scholar; Lapidoth, R., Les détroits en droit international (Paris, Pedone, 1972).Google Scholar
13 See article mentioned supra n. 3.
14 The Corfu Channel case (merits) (United Kingdom/Albania), International Court of Justice, Reports, 1949, p. 4.
15 See e.g., Baxter, R.R. and Triska, J.F., The Law of International Waterways with Particular Regard to Interoceanic Canals (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1964) 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDougal, M.S. and Burke, W.T., The Public Order of the Oceans—A Contemporary International Law of the Sea (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1962) 212.Google Scholar
16 See Hodgson, R.D. and McIntyre, T.V., “Maritime Commerce in Selected Areas of High Concentration” in Clingan, Th. A. and Alexander, L.M., eds., Hazards of Maritime Transit (1973) 1–18, at 3–7.Google Scholar
17 I.C.J. Reports, 1949, at 28.
18 Supra n. 16, at 16.
19 I.C.J. Reports, 1949, p. 28. It has been maintained, however, that the passage of warships in straits may be subjected to stricter regulations than the passage of merchant ships. Note, “Peacetime Passage by Warships Through Territorial Straits” (1950) 50 Colum. L.R. 220–225.
20 On this point, see SirFitzmaurice, Gerald, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: General Principles and Substantive Law” (1950) 27 British Year Book of International Law, 1–41, at 28–29.Google Scholar
21 Schwarzenberger, G., International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, vol. 2, The Law of Armed Conflict (London, Stevens, 1968) 40Google Scholar; Jessup, Ph.C., “Should International Law Recognize an Intermediate Status Between Peace and War?” (1954) 48 A.J.I.L. 98–103.Google Scholar
22 I.C.J. Reports, 1949, at p. 29.
23 See Feinberg, N., The Legality of a ‘State of War’ After the Cessation of Hostilities Under the Charter of the United Nations and the Covenant of the League of Nations (Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, 1961) 42ff.Google Scholar, and other references in R. Lapidoth, “Freedom of Navigation With Special Reference to International Waterways in the Middle East” Jerusalem Papers on Peace Problems, nos. 13–14 (The Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1975) 62, n. 175.
24 Oppenheim, L.–Lauterpacht, H., International Law—A Treatise (7th ed., Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Toronto, 1952) vol. 2, pp. 696–697.Google Scholar
25 R.R. Baxter and J.F. Triska, supra n. 15, at 190–195; E. Brüel, supra n. 12, vol. 1, pp. 202–204.
26 E. Brüel, ibid.
27 R.R. Baxter and J.F. Triska, supra n. 15, at 208, 243–244; E. Brüel, at 202; Zemanek, K., “Meerengen,” in Strupp-Schlochauer, , Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts (Berlin, De Gruyter, 1961) vol. 2, pp. 494–495, at 495.Google Scholar
28 The applicability of the regime of innocent passage to Bab al-Mandeb has also been recognized by Mr. Ba-Issa the Representative of South Yemen to the Caracas session of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea. See Official Records of the Conference, 1975, vol. II, p. 142.
29 For a detailed analysis of this conference see Rosenne, S., “The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea” (1976) 11 Is.L.R. 1–51.Google Scholar
30 See e.g. Momtaz, D., “La question des détroits à la troisième Conférence des Nations-Unies sur le droit de la mer,” (1974) 20 Annuaire Français de Droit International 841–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slomanson, W.R., “Free Transit in Territorial Straits: Jurisdiction on an Even Keel?” (1973) 3 California Western International Law Journal, 375–396Google Scholar; Fleischer, C.A., “International Straits: A Key Issue at the Law of the Sea Conference” (1975) 1 Environmental Policy and Law 120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McNees, R.B., “Freedom of Transit Through International Straits” (1974–1975) 6 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 175–212Google Scholar; Nolta, F., “Passage Through International Straits: Free or Innocent? The Interests at Stake” (1974) 11 San Diego Law Review 815–833Google Scholar; Grandison, W.G. and Meyer, V.J., “International Straits, Global Communications and the Evolving Law of the Sea” (1975) 8 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 393–449.Google Scholar
31 U.N. Doc. A/AC.138/SC. II/L.4, of 3 August 1971 (submitted to the Sea-Bed Committee). For comments, see Knight, H.G., “The 1971 United States Proposals on the Breadth of the Territorial Sea and Passage Through International Straits” (1972) 51 Oregon Law Review 759–787.Google Scholar Compare to the draft submitted by the Soviet Union to the Sea-Bed Committee—A/AC. 138/SC. II/L.7, of 25 July 1972, and by the Communist Bloc to the Caracas session of the Law of the Sea Conference—A/CONF. 62/C.2/L.11, of 17 July 1974.
32 See e.g., draft submitted to the Sea-Bed Committee by Cyprus, Greece, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, the Philippines, Spain and Yemen, A/AC.138/SC.II/L.18, of 27 March 1973, and the draft submitted to the Caracas session of the Law of the Sea Conference by Malaysia, Morocco, Oman and Yemen, A/CONF.62/C.2/ L.16, of 22 July 1974.
33 See U.K. draft to the Caracas session, A/CONF.62/C.2/L.3, of 3 July 1974.
34 Informal Single Negotiating Text prepared by the Chairman of the Second Committee [of the 1975 Geneva session of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea], U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.8/Part II, of 7 May 1975, articles 34–44; Revised Single Negotiating Text [submitted to the 1976 New York session] A/CONF.62/WP.8/Rev.1/Part II, of 6 May 1976, articles 33–43; Informal Composite Negotiating Text [submitted to the 1977 New York session] A/CONF. 62/WP. 10, of 15 July 1977, articles 34–45.
35 The proposed “exclusive economic zone” would be an area beyond the territorial sea up to 200 miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, in which the coastal State would have resource jurisdiction while the other freedoms of the high seas would be preserved for all States, see articles 55–75 of the 1977 Informal Composite Negotiating Text (supra n. 34).
36 Arts. 36 and 37 of the 1977 Text. For a different classification, see Smith, R.W., “An Analysis of the Strategic Attributes of International Straits: A Geographical Perspective,” (1974) 2 Maritime Studies Management 88–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Art. 38(1) of the 1977 Text, and art. 35(c).
38 Art. 38(2) of the 1977 Text.
39 Ibid.
40 Art. 45 of the 1977 Text.
41 Art. 14(6) of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
42 Reproduced in U.N. Doc. S/11818/Add.l and Add.5 (1975); (1975) 14 International Legal Materials, 1450–1470.
43 L. Oppenheim-H. Lauterpacht, supra n. 24, at 768.
44 Dictionnaire de la terminologie du droit international (Paris, Sirey, 1960), 89.
45 Supra n. 42.
46 Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (concise ed.), s.v. “waterway”.
47 According to Professor R.R. Baxter and Dr. J.F. Triska, “[i]nternational waterways must be considered to be those rivers, canals, and straits which are used to a substantial extent by the commercial shipping or warships belonging to states other than the riparian nation or nations” (Baxter and Triska, supra n. 15, at 3).
