Dispute Settlement and Fresh Water

2021 ◽  
pp. 258-322
Author(s):  
Laurence Boisson de Chazournes
Keyword(s):  
Fresh Water ◽  
Natural Resource ◽  
Water Scarcity ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Water Law ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Access To Water ◽  
Cross Fertilization ◽  
Inter State

The resolution of disputes related to issues of fresh water scarcity, degradation, and access to water are evident in practice. There is a staggering diversity of institutions with judicial or quasi-judicial authority over these matters, as well as diplomatic means which can help settle these various disputes. A trend towards variation and multiplication of available mechanisms for resolving water-related disputes can be observed. As a consequence of both inter-state and mixed-party disputes concerning water, international courts and tribunals have amassed growing bodies of decisions in water law, and their reliance on the case law of other jurisdictions suggests an evolving harmonization in this field. This cross-fertilization among traditional dispute settlement bodies has progressed concurrently with the development of novel procedures tailored to the uniquely collective interests at stake in natural resource disputes.

Introduction

2007 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Chester Brown
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Homogeneous Body ◽  
Short Introduction ◽  
International Courts ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Adjudication

This chapter gives a short introduction to the history of international dispute settlement by third-party adjudication. It notes that there is a gap in the existing literature, being an examination of procedure and remedies before different international courts, and an answer to the question of whether the same procedural rules obtain, and the same remedies are available, before different international judicial bodies. It presents the book's central thesis — that international courts often adopt common approaches to questions of procedure and remedies, which leads to increasing commonality in the case law of international courts. It then explains that the term ‘common law of international adjudication’ refers to the emergence of an increasingly homogeneous body of rules applied by international courts and tribunals relating to procedure and remedies. It then defines the terms ‘procedure’ and ‘remedies’. It also covers certain selected aspects of international adjudication, and reviews the jurisprudence of certain selected international courts and tribunals.

Conclusion

2007 ◽  
pp. 260-262
Author(s):  
Chester Brown
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Common Law ◽  
International Courts ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
Common Practices ◽  
Solid Foundation ◽  
The Common ◽  
International Adjudication ◽  
Further Development ◽  
Cross Fertilization

This concluding chapter notes that the book has asked whether international courts, in interpreting and applying their powers over procedure and remedies, have considered and sought to adopt the practices of other international courts. The book examined the sources of procedural and remedial competences of the principal international courts, and analysed the tools available to international courts to engage in cross-fertilization on issues relating to procedure and remedies. It then examined the degree of common practice with respect to several aspects of international adjudication: rules of evidence, the power to grant provisional measures, the power to interpret and revise judgments, and the remedies available in international adjudication. It then proposed various factors which explain the emergence of common practices, and noted limitations to its further development. Finally, it reviewed the practical and theoretical implications of the common law of international adjudication, concluding that it serves as a solid foundation for the further development of a harmonious system of international dispute settlement.

Let’s (Not) (Dis)Agree to Disagree!? Some Thoughts on the ‘Dispute’ Requirement in International Adjudication

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-106
Author(s):  
Andreas Kulick
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Adjudication

Abstract International courts and tribunals only enjoy jurisdiction to settle a ‘dispute’. ‘Dispute’ requires disagreement. However, what if the parties disagree over whether there actually exists such disagreement? What if, before the International Court of Justice, the respondent argues that there is no ‘dispute’ because it declined to react to the applicant’s contentions? In other words, can a disputing party avoid a dispute by playing dead? On the other hand, where does one draw the line in order to prevent the applicant from seizing an international court or tribunal where there is in fact no real disagreement between the parties? This article critically assesses the Court’s case law on the ‘dispute’ requirement and argues for a fragmented approach to ‘dispute’ in international adjudication that carefully defines this jurisdictional requirement along the lines of the judicial function of the respective international judicial dispute settlement forum.

The Cross-Fertilization of UNCLOS, Custom and Principles Relating to Procedure in the Jurisprudence of UNCLOS Courts and Tribunals

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-170
Author(s):  
Elena Ivanova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
International Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Different Sources ◽  
Cross Fertilization

Cross-fertilization of international law entails interaction of norms in international law and can occur in the context of interaction between different sources of law; different branches of international law or different subject-matter areas; and interaction between a treaty norm belonging to a one area of international law and a customary norm arising from another area of international law. There are different avenues for cross-fertilization of international law: it can result from the application of Art. 31 (3) (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)1 in the process of interpreting a particular treaty, from the application of other rules of international law together with a particular treaty or from reference to the jurisprudence of other international courts or tribunals by adhering to the approach adopted in this jurisprudence. This article examines the question of cross-fertilization of international law in the context of the jurisprudence of the courts and tribunals operating within the dispute settlement system established under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter ‘UNCLOS’ or ‘Convention’).2 It will demonstrate how these adjudicatory bodies have employed Art. 31 (3) (c) VCLT, Art. 293 UNCLOS which explicitly enables them to apply other rules of international law not incompatible with the Convention, and the international jurisprudence in order to interpret and apply the UNCLOS while situating it the broader context of international law. Note will be taken of UNCLOS provisions incorporating or referring to other rules of international law which also contribute to the cross-fertilization of international law.

General Principles of Procedural Law in the Practice of the WTO Appellate Body

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Mariana Clara de Andrade
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract The method of identification of general principles and their function as a source of law have long been object of doctrinal debate. This topic is now under the programme of work of the International Law Commission. Relatedly, international courts and tribunals have relied on general principles of procedural law derived from national legal systems in their practice and reasoning, but the methodology employed by adjudicators in importing these sources from domestic law remains obscure. This research examines the use of general principles of procedural law in WTO dispute settlement, in particular by its Appellate Body. The aim is two-fold: first, to study the methodology employed in the identification of general principles of procedural law in the case law of the WTO Appellate Body; second, to examine the functions performed by general principles in the practice of this international jurisdiction.

Non-Participation in Compulsory Procedures of Dispute Settlement

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Franckx ◽  
Marco Benatar
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Joint Declaration ◽  
Peculiar Form ◽  
The Russian Federation

Erik Franckx and Marco Benatar consider the peculiar backlash in the form of states rejecting the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals (ICs). They discuss how the People’s Republic of China (PRC) rejected jurisdiction in the Philippines v PRC arbitration. The authors draw comparisons with how the Russian Federation rejected the jurisdiction of an arbitration panel in the Arctic Sunrise case. But both states participated in the peculiar form of forwarding ‘position papers’. This allows states new modes of influencing the bench without formally participating in the proceedings, argues Franckx and Benatar. This may tempt other states to apply a similar approach. For example, Croatia has presented its views to an arbitration panel in a dispute with Slovenia, despite its non-participation after irregularities by one of the arbitrators. The PRC and the Russian Federation have also issued a joint declaration encouraging non-participation in international legal proceedings.

Ensuring access to water in an emergency context: Towards an overexploitation and contamination of water resources?

2021 ◽  
pp. 096466392110316
Author(s):  
Chloé Nicolas-Artero
Keyword(s):  
Drinking Water ◽  
Water Resources ◽  
Qualitative Methods ◽  
Water Scarcity ◽  
Water Rights ◽  
Environmental Crisis ◽  
Supply Network ◽  
Mining Pollution ◽  
Access To Water

This article shows how geo-legal devices created to deal with environmental crisis situations make access to drinking water precarious and contribute to the overexploitation and contamination of water resources. It relies on qualitative methods (interviews, observations, archive work) to identify and analyse two geo-legal devices applied in the case study of the Elqui Valley in Chile. The first device, generated by the Declaration of Water Scarcity, allows private sanitation companies to concentrate water rights and extend their supply network, thus producing an overexploitation of water resources. In the context of mining pollution, the second device is structured around the implementation of the Rural Drinking Water Programme and the distribution of water by tankers, which has made access to drinking water more precarious for the population and does nothing to prevent pollution.

scholarly journals A transnational judicial public sphere as an idea and ideology: Critical reflections on judicial dialogue and its legitimizing potential

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 186-207
Author(s):  
KNUT TRAISBACH
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Critical Potential ◽  
Normative Significance ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Cross Fertilization ◽  
Critical Reflections

AbstractThis article sheds a critical light on judicial dialogue when its purpose and meaning are taken beyond cross-fertilization and comparative reasoning. It cautions against a conceptualization of judicial dialogue as a means to foster commonalities between courts and to legitimize judicial governance. The argument develops from an idealized notion of a ‘transnational judicial public sphere’. In this sphere, domestic, regional and international courts ideally form common opinions through dialogue and pursue common purposes. The danger of this understanding is to construct a new paradigm that not only overlooks important differences in the interest, influence and opinion of courts, but also overstates the socio-normative significance of exchanges between courts and of judicial governance in general. The critical potential of judicial dialogues lies less in the formation of commonalities or in the legitimization of judicial authority than in bringing alternatives and a plurality of opinions to the fore.

scholarly journals Janus Membrane with Novel Directional Water Transport Capacity for Efficient Atmospheric Water Capture

Nanoscale ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Wu ◽  
Baona Ren ◽  
Haohong Pi ◽  
Xin Zhao ◽  
Miaomiao Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fresh Water ◽  
Water Transport ◽  
Water Scarcity ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Transport Capacity ◽  
Atmospheric Water ◽  
Human Survival ◽  
Survival And Development ◽  
Energy Independence

Fresh water scarcity becomes a crisis to human survival and development. Atmospheric water capture with remarkable advantages such as energy-independence, low-cost, etc., has been supposed as a promising way to...

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document