THE Egyptian people are keen to revoke the Camp David treaty or at least make amendments to it in a way serving the interests of both parties. This was more evident after a rise in crime on Egypt's borders with Israel and Palestine with frequent attacks on Egyptian security men and border guards. The Sinai Peninsula has become a nest for terrorists as well as for traffickers of arms, drugs and stolen goods. There is no doubt a mere mention of terminating the Camp David treaty would sound alarm bells both in the White House and Tel Aviv. At the same time, it would be an embarrassment for the Egyptian government as well, especially after the recent changes in the military leadership. Now, the pressing question, which of course has disturbing dimensions, is: Will Egypt revoke the treaty after agreeing with Israel, if possible, or without an understanding, simply because of its inherent dangers? Taking such a political decision after realizing the current reality would ensure the new government's success in dealing with major foreign policy issues. In such a scenario, what would be the position of the United States, especially when it is going to presidential elections, and the American Jewish vote is beginning to play its role even though it does not have any impact? Is it just a slogan for the US to keep the cat clawing? Anyhow, such a move would help the Muslim Brotherhood to exercise almost its full authority. I believe that the issue is simpler than what was visualized and would serve the Egypt's interests harmed mostly after implementing the treaty. An international treaty in a broader sense means an agreement between two or more parties on an international law to apply specific legal provisions in line with its rules. There are various types of treaties with set goals or purposes, such as a peace accord, non-aggression pact, commercial agreement, border demarcation treaty and joint defense pact. A treaty is similar to a commercial contract with specific provisions. It is possible to terminate a treaty as in the case of a contract, especially when either of the parties sees the reasons for termination as crucial as they are detrimental to its interests. As per international law, a treaty can be revoked for four reasons:
* A country, which is a party to a treaty, can terminate it with its own decision or stop implementing its rovisions fully or partially even if the other party fulfills its commitment to abide by the treaty.
* Termination of a treaty should be on the ground of strong reasons related to violation of its major provisions. As for illegal or arbitrary termination, the concerned country should bear the subsequent international responsibility.
* A treaty can be terminated with change of circumstances. According to Article 62 of the Vienna Convention, a fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless: (a) The existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and (b) the effect of the change radically transforms the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.
* Treaties can be terminated because of inequitable provisions. According to international custom, a treaty can be terminated if it contains unfair terms. This reminds us of the situation of China after it had suffered defeat from Britain in the Opium War of 1839-42. China had to conclude an unequivalent treaty with Britain after the war, and this treaty was followed by two similar treaties with the United States and France. These treaties gave several privileges for the citizens of these three countries in China. The Chinese people saw the treaty as unfair because it served the interests of only one of the two parties. The Camp David treaty was signed on Sept. 17, 1978. It has nine main articles, and these included agreements regarding armies of Egypt and Israel, military situation, bilateral relations between the two countries, schedule of Israeli pullout and the exchange of ambassadors. The Article 4 and its associated principles relate security breaches in Sinai that could be of more consequences to Egypt than to Israel. It is clear that after continuing rise in crimes on the eastern border of Egypt, the country's security has been seriously threatened amd Egyptian forces must restore their full control on Sinai. As the Camp David treaty is still in force and the two countries are maintaining their relations accordingly, Egypt and Israel can eventually reach an understanding to reframe security provisions in the treaty if Israel has good intentions and is serious about peace. If Israel refuses to reach such an understanding, then Egypt has the right to terminate the treaty unilaterally in line with the international law and for the sake of maintaining security in the region. There are more than one legal option in front of Egypt to terminate the treaty, either in full or in part, whether Israel likes it or not.
