(d) Canals connecting large bodies of water have been regarded as in most respects subject to jurisdiction similar to that of straits. Yet as these canals are constructed at a cost, they must also be given exemptions from certain restrictions which properly apply to natural channels.
The position of the Suez Canal as an international waterway gives some indication of existing practice.
It is to be noted, (1) that the canal is an artificial waterway; (2) that M. de Lesseps, a foreigner, in 1854, under authorization of the Viceroy, undertook its construction as a business venture; (3) that it is wholly within the territory of Egypt.
The case is then one of an artificial waterway, constructed by private capital, wholly within the territory of a state.
The negotiations continued from 1869, when the canal was opened, to 1888, when a convention was signed by the Six Great Powers, and by the Netherlands, Spain, and Turkey, by which the status of the canal was defined. By Article I. of the Conventional Act, "The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in the time of war as in the time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.
"Consequently, the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal, in time of war as in time of peace.
"The Canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade."
By Article IV., the canal is not to become the base of hostile action. The marine league is to be respected in the action of foreign vessels. The twenty-four hour period was to elapse between the sailing of hostile vessels.
By Article VII., the powers might keep two war vessels in the "ports of access of Port Said and Suez," though "this right shall not be exercised by belligerents."
By Article X., the territorial jurisdiction for general administrative purposes is affirmed, and likewise for sanitary measures in Article XV.[140]