On April 8, 2016, the Egyptian government announced the signing of a “Convention of Demarcation of the Maritime Border” with Saudi Arabia (Convention). Under the Convention, the Red Sea Islands of Tiran and Sanafir lay in Saudi territory. The move was perceived by foreign and domestic observers as the abandonment by Egypt of a long-held territorial and maritime claim in exchange for a loan from Saudi Arabia, and it was challenged before the Egyptian courts. On January 16, 2017, the Egyptian Supreme Administrative Court rendered a judgment annulling the act of cession of the islands on the basis of the Egyptian people's entitlement over them (Judgment). The Judgment triggered a domestic judicial saga, which only ended in 2018. Aside from the intriguing political dimensions of this incident, the Judgment, while interpreting the Egyptian Constitution of 2014, sheds light on some fundamental aspects of international law, namely: the identity of the “holder” of sovereignty and its relations with the “delegatee,” i.e., the government; the contribution of human rights as an analytical frame for this issue; and the validity of a treaty concluded in violation of a state's treaty-making powers, a question for which there is limited practice.

中文翻译：

---

共和国总统等人。v. Ali Ayyoub 等人。

2016年4月8日，埃及政府宣布与沙特阿拉伯签署《划定海上边界公约》（公约）。根据该公约，蒂朗和萨纳菲尔的红海群岛位于沙特领土内。国内外观察人士认为，此举是埃及放弃长期持有的领土和海洋主张，以换取沙特阿拉伯的贷款，并在埃及法院受到质疑。2017 年 1 月 16 日，埃及最高行政法院作出判决，以埃及人民对岛屿的权利为由，宣布该岛屿的割让行为无效（判决）。该判决引发了一场国内司法传奇，该传奇直到 2018 年才结束。除了这一事件引人入胜的政治层面之外，该判决，在解释 2014 年埃及宪法的同时，阐明了国际法的一些基本方面，即：主权“持有者”的身份及其与“代表”即政府的关系；人权作为这一问题的分析框架的贡献；违反一国缔约权而缔结的条约的有效性，这是一个实践有限的问题。