Hilmy, Hanny2015-02-132017-01-0820152015-02-13http://hdl.handle.net/1828/5888This research is concerned with the complex and contested relationship between the sovereign prerogatives of states and the international imperative of defusing world conflicts. Due to its historical setting following World War Two, the national vs. international staking of claims was framed within the escalating imperial-nationalist confrontation and the impending “end of empire”, both of which were significantly influenced by the role Israel played in this saga. The research looks at the issue of “decolonization” and the anti-colonial struggle waged under the leadership of Egypt’s President Nasser. The Suez War is analyzed as the historical event that signaled the beginning of the final chapter in the domination of the European empires in the Middle East (sub-Saharan decolonization followed beginning in the early 1960s), and the emergence of the United States as the new major Western power in the Middle East. The Suez experience highlighted a stubborn contest between the defenders of the concept of “sovereign consent” and the advocates of “International intervention”. Both the deployment of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and its termination were surrounded by controversy and legal-political wrangling. The role of UNEF and UN peacekeeping operations in general framed the development of a new concept for an emerging international human rights law and crisis management. The UNEF experience, moreover, brought into sharp relief the need for a conflict resolution component for any peace operation. International conflict management, and human rights protection are both subject to an increasing interventionist international legal regime. Consequently, the traditional concept of “sovereignty” is facing increasing challenge. By its very nature, the subject matter of this multi-dimensional research involves historical, political and international legal aspects shaping the research’s content and conclusions. The research utilizes the experience and contributions of several key participants in this pioneering peacekeeping experience. In the last chapter, recommendations are made –based on all the elements covered in the research- to suggest contributions to the evolving UN ground rules for international crisis intervention and management.enNational SovereigntyPeacekeepingPeacemakingUNEFDecolonizationEnd of EmpireIsraelZionismSevres AgreementDag HammarskjoldU ThantGeneral E L M BurnsGeneral Amin Hilmy IIGeneral Charles KeightleyGeneral Andre BeaufreGeneral Indar J. Rikhye1956 Suez WarGood Faith Agreement1967 Arab-Israeli WarPresident Gamal Abdel NasserSovereign ConsentInternational Human Rights LawJohan GaltungLester PearsonPresident Dwight EisenhowerSecretary John F. DullesPrime Minister Anthony EdenPrime Minister Guy MolletPrime Minister David Ben-GurionGeneral Moshe DayanGeneral Abdel Hakim AmerStatus of Forces AgreementPort SaidArab-Israeli Armistice AgreementsUNTSONationalization of the Suez Canal CompmpanyNational LiberationAnti-Colonial StruggleSovereign EqualityWestphaliaKadeshMusketeerUniting for Peace ResolutionInternational Court of JusticeUN Security CouncilUN General AssemblyUN CharterChapter VII Enforcement MeasuresChapter VI Voluntary CompliancePalestinian RefugeesNegev DesertSharm El-SheikhSinai PeninsulaGaza StripGulf of AqabaCold WarUnited StatesSoviet Union (USSR)Lavon AffairMEDOOperation ALPHAOMEGA PlanBaghdad PactBandung ConferenceMohamed HeikalAide MemoireMohamed MosaddeghAswan High Dam1888 Constantinople ConventionUSS LibertyStraits of TiranInternational LawMahmoud FawziPrime Minister Levi EshkolPresident Lyndon JohnsonAbbba Eban1992 Agenda for PeaceBoutros Boutros-Ghali2000 Brahimi ReportLakhdar Brahimi2001 Responsibility to ProtectKofi AnnanGeneral Romeo DallairePermanent UN Army2000 SHIRBRIGInternational Human Rights LawInternational Humanitarian LawUNEF IIstatus quo ante bellumlocus standipacta sunt servandaerga omnesLord CaradonSecurity Council 242ThesisAvailable to the World Wide Web