scholarly journals Problems of formation of an international regime of the joint use and protection of international watercourses

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 73-86
Author(s):  
Yu. A. Sluchevskaya
Keyword(s):  
Water Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Information Support ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Economic Changes ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
High Conflict ◽  
International Water ◽  
State Relations

The article is devoted to the problem of formation of modern international legal regime of joint use and protection of international watercourses that is aimed at effective provision of water to the States of international watercourse with due respect to new challenges and threats that have a negative impact on international water resources. The model is based on the concept of “international watercourse” that has the following features: 1) international watercourses include surface and ground waters; 2) a spatial and territorial criterion of an international watercourse that means crossing of the border between two or more States or being on their border; 3) the use of international watercourses affects the interests of two or more States; 4) the special international legal regime for the use of international watercourses that has developed within the framework of international law development; 5) special requirements for the protection of ecosystems of international watercourses that include protection from pollution and other forms of degradation of lands and forests adjacent to international watercourses, their fauna and flora; as well as seas into which watercourses flow; 6) a high conflict potential in the use of water resources of international watercourses. The analysis of the provisions of the doctrines of joint use and protection of transboundary waters shows that the formation of international water law should timely take into account human factors, technological and socio-economic changes. The modern international law model of the joint use and protection of international watercourses is a system of international legal norms regulating inter-state relations in the following areas: prevention, limitation and reduction of transboundary impact; protection of ecosystems of international watercourses; rational use of waters of international watercourses, effective management of water resources of international watercourses (including establishment and functioning of international basin organizations); information support of the population with regard to international watercourses.

Aspects of the Law of International Water Resources

1993 ◽  
Vol 27 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 213-221
Author(s):  
M. Hirsch ◽  
D. Housen-Couriel
Keyword(s):  
Water Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Water ◽  
The Law ◽  
National Boundaries ◽  
Point Of Departure

As a result of the nature of lakes, rivers and aquifers, which ignore national boundaries, states are often presented with the problem of how to share and manage these limited resources. The role of law is to clarify the rights and responsibilities of states in such situations. Two aspects of the law of international water resources will be explored in this article. The point of departure for the analysis is public international law itself, which contains principles and guidelines for the utilization and management of water resources by the states which share them. The international legal regime applying to surface water will first be discussed. The second part of the article will consist of a comparison of several treaty regimes which presently apply in a situation of shared water resources between states.

scholarly journals LEGAL RIGHTS OF INTERNATIONAL WATER RESOURCES: A CASE OF TIGRIS AND EUPHRATES RIVERS

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (22) ◽  
pp. 130-137
Author(s):  
Omar Ahmed Hussein ◽  
Khadijah Mohamed
Keyword(s):  
Water Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
International Water ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
International Conventions

This paper aims to examine Iraq’s rights, being the downstream country, towards the use of Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the extent to which international water resources are protected under international law. Being the downstream country, projects constructed on the banks of Tigris and Euphrates Rivers had significantly impacted Iraq as less water flows into the country. The discussion in this paper outlines principles of the existing international conventions and protocols in this area by adopting a doctrinal legal research approach which has great significance to understand the relevant substantive law through the analysis of legal rules, court judgments, and statutes. The paper concludes that historically, Iraq had an acquired right, a right confirmed by the international rules and principles, to share the usage of water from the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers with the upstream countries comprising of Turkey, Syria, and Iran. This paper suggests that all riparian countries of the Tigris and the Euphrates should abide by the rules of international law and recognize Iraq’s historical water ratios of these rivers based on the principle of the acquired right under international law.

International Water R esources Law and the International Law Commission Draft Articles on Transboundary Aquifers: A Missed Opportunity for Cross-Fertilisation?

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Owen McIntyre
Keyword(s):  
Water Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
Guiding Principle ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Geological Formation ◽  
International Water ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Transboundary Aquifers ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
Missed Opportunity

AbstractWhile the Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers adopted in 2008 by the International Law Commission (ILC)1 follow the same format as the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention2 and might reasonably have been expected to adopt a similar normative approach wherever possible, the Preamble to the Draft Articles fails to make any reference to this or to other seminal instruments or codifications in the area of international water resources law and the document takes, in some respects, a radically different and less progressive stance. The principal difference in the Draft Articles, and one which can be linked to most of the other deviations, is the inclusion of an express reference to the sovereignty of aquifer States in a manner implying that this is the key guiding principle of the instrument. This emphasis on State sovereignty over shared, and often migratory, water resources appears to represent something of a retreat from the distributive equity inherent in the firmly established principle of equitable and reasonable utilization and from the intense procedural and institutional cooperation required to achieve the community of interests approach necessary to give meaning to this principle. Reliance on sovereignty implies instead a drift towards a position based more on the narrow and immediate self-interest of States. In order to avoid such an interpretation, it would have been better if the Draft Articles had sought to establish two separate but parallel regimes, one based on sovereignty and covering the static geological formation of the aquifer, and one covering the shared water resources contained in, and transiting through, the formation and based on equitable and reasonable utilization.

scholarly journals International Law for Transboundary Aquifers: A Challenge for Our Times

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 201-206
Author(s):  
Gabriel Eckstein
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Surface Waters ◽  
Water Scarcity ◽  
Transboundary Rivers ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Growing Pains ◽  
Rivers And Lakes ◽  
International Water Law ◽  
International Water

Quarrels between states sharing a transboundary aquifer (TBA) have been relatively minor in comparison with the more boisterous disputes seen in many of the world's shared river basins. Yet, transboundary groundwater can easily serve as the basis for cross-border disagreements. Twice as many TBAs and shared groundwater bodies have been identified globally as compared to transboundary rivers and lakes, and the volume of accessible groundwater exceeds all surface waters by a factor of one hundred. Yet, the number of treaties in force for TBAs is miniscule in comparison with those for transboundary rivers and lakes. Moreover, dozens of nations exploit groundwater from a TBA, often unilaterally and without knowing the cross-border implications, or even that the aquifer is transboundary. The lack of prioritization of groundwater in international practice and law, coupled with the reality that groundwater is “out of sight,” and thereby “out of mind,” has relegated shared aquifers as the neglected stepchildren of international water law. But, with many of the world's nations experiencing growing water scarcity and stress, this situation undoubtedly will change. This essay highlights the growing pains of international groundwater law and the challenges for its identification and articulation. Specific hydrogeologic characteristics of various TBAs are presented and, where relevant, placed in the context of water scarcity and security and recognized international legal norms.

The International Law Association Helsinki Rules

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-110
Author(s):  
Slavko Bogdanović
Keyword(s):  
Water Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
Water Law ◽  
Intensive Study ◽  
International Rivers ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Water Law ◽  
International Water

AbstractAlthough the International Law Association (ILA) was established in 1873, it only turned its attention to the internationally shared water resources in 1954, when its study of the applicable principles and rules of international law thereon began. The first ILA committee assigned to this task was the Rivers Committee, which, after a decade of intensive study and through several resolutions and statements, arrived unanimously at a set of articles reflecting customary international law, known as The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers.The Helsinki Rules approved at the ILA Helsinki Conference in 1966 were soon widely accepted across the globe as a non-binding authoritative source of international water law. This monograph traces the work of ILA leading to the approval of the Helsinki Rules, analyses the Rules, and identifies their influence on, and contribution to the evolution of international water law.

Hydro-hegemony and international water law: grappling with the gaps of power and law

Water Policy ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (S2) ◽  
pp. 103-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melvin Woodhouse ◽  
Mark Zeitoun
Keyword(s):  
Water Resources ◽  
Water Law ◽  
Water Sharing ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
State Practice ◽  
State Behaviour ◽  
International Water Law ◽  
International Water ◽  
Reasonable Use

In its present emergent form, International Water Law (IWL) is concerned with enabling States to demonstrate an end result of equitable and reasonable sharing of transboundary waters, and thus does not directly address the cause of behaviour which may prevent this goal from being realised. In addition, this consent-based system is insufficiently developed to redress issues arising from the use of covert ideational power by one state to achieve control over water resources shared with other states. By offering a means to describe, analyse and demonstrate how the use of power by a State is a major determinant of its behaviour regarding sharing water resources, the approach of hydro-hegemony may help address such shortcomings, and thus be of some use to IWL. This paper presents a straightforward introduction to the area overlapped by International Water Law and the Framework of Hydro-Hegemony. We further explore how the Framework could make a direct and practical contribution to the knowledge of legal norms for state behaviour regarding the use of power and water sharing. The Framework of Hydro-hegemony shows that the covert use of power by a State can be used to perpetuate water sharing arrangements that can be inequitable and unreasonable, yet tolerated and even ‘stable’, in that they are not readily challenged. At present, hegemony and IWL coexist as parallel tracks, with the law being effectively blind to what is actually happening. We suggest that international water law must become aware of these covert hegemonic practices and incorporate them into the determination of compliant State practice if the principles of equitable and reasonable use are to be properly operationalised.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document