Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:53:30.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Primacy of the Principle of Equitable Utilization in the 1997 Watercourses Convention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Charles B. Bourne
Get access

Summary

The International Law Commission wrestled for over a decade with the relationship between the principle of equitable utilization and the no harm principle in its work on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses. In its final Report to the UN General Assembly on this topic in 1994, the Commission presented a set of Draft Articles couched in obscure language that reflected the sharp differences of opinion on the matter and the compromises that had been made. This division of opinion about the relationship between these two principles persisted in the Working Group of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly to which the Draft Articles were referred. Again, compromises were reached and the language of the substantive articles (in particular Articles 5, 7, 20, and 21) of the Watercourses Convention, adopted by the General Assembly on May 21, 1997, continues to be obscure and its meaning debatable.

It is argued here that in this Convention the principle of equitable utilization, which prescribes the reasonable and equitable sharing of the beneficial uses of the waters of an international watercourse, is made the primary substantive rule of international water law; harm caused by a utilization of these waters is, of course, an important factor to be taken into account in determining whether, in a particular case, the utilization is reasonable and equitable and, therefore, lawful. This interpretation of the Watercourses Convention brings it into harmony with customary international water law. It is an interpretation that finds support in the recent decision of the International Court of fustice in the Gabákovo case.

Sommaire

Sommaire

Durant une décennie, la Commission de droit international a débattu du lien entre le principe de l'utilisation équitable et le principe de la réduction des torts dans son travail sur les utilisations non-navigables des cours d'eau internationaux. La Convention, telle qu'adoptée par l'Assemblée générale le 21 mai 1997, précise que le principe de l'utilisation équitable ( qui prévoit le partage équitable et raisonnable de l'eau des cours d'eau internationaux) devient le principe fondamental substantif du droit international en matière des cours d'eaux. Un dommage suite à l'utilisation d'un cours d'eau international est un facteur indiquant si l'utilisation est, en effet, raisonnable, équitable et, donc, conforme à la Convention. Cette interprétation de la Convention correspond à l'évolution des principes de droit international coutumier en la matière. De plus, cette interprétation de la Convention est appuyée par l'arrêt récent de la Cour internationale de justice, Gabákovo.

Type
Notes and Comments / Notes et commentaires
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 35 , 1997 , pp. 215 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 1997 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For this doctrine enunciated by Attorney-General Harmon of the United States, see Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo — International Law, 21 Ops. Att’y Gen. 274 at 280-83 (1895).

2 Treaty relating to boundary waters and questions arising along the boundary between the United States and Canada, Jan. 11, 1909, 3 Stat 2448; TS No. 548; III Redmond 2607.

3 The Indus Waters Treaty, Sept. 19, 1960, 419 UNTS 125; The Nile Waters Treaty, Nov. 8, 1959, 453 UNTS 51; The Columbia River Treaty, Jan. 17, 1961 and Jan. 23, 1964, 15 UST 1555; TIAS 5638; 542 UNTS 244.

4 Resolution on the Utilization of Non-Maritime International Waters (except for Navigation), adopted by the Institute of International Law at its Session at Salzburg (Sept. 4–13, 1961), 49 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, Tome II, 381 (1961).

5 See Finnish Branch of the International Law Association, The Work of the International Law Association on the Law of International Water Resources, Manner, E. J. and Metsalampi, Veli-Martti, eds. (1988).Google Scholar

6 (l957), (France-Spain), 12 R.I.A.A. 281 (Award of Nov. 16, 1957), 24 I.L.R. 101.

7 Manner and Metsalampi, supra note 5 at 21.

8 General Assembly Resolution 2669 (XXV), Dec. 8, 1970; UN GOAR, 25th Sess., Supp. No. 28, at 127; UN Doc. A/8028 (1970).

9 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 46th session, May 2 - July 22, 1994, GAOR, 49th Sess., Supp. No. 10 (A/49/10), at 195-366. [hereinafter Report of the ILC]

10 UN Doc. A/51/869, Apr. 11, 1997, 36 I.L.M. 700 (1997) [hereinafter 1997 Convention]

11 UN Resolution 51/229, May 51, 1997.

12 1997 Convention supra note 10 at Art. 36, para. 1.

13 For the text of these articles, which will be referred to subsequently, see 1997 Convention, supra note 10.

14 Report of ILC, supra note 9 at 222.

15 Ibid., 282.

16 Ibid., 291.

17 UN Doc. A/CN.4/412/Add.2 (1988) at para. 13; II Yearbook of the International Law Commision 241 ( 1988) [hereinafter McCaffrey Report].

18 Lammers, J. G., Pollution of International Watercourses: The Search for Substantive Rules and Prináples of Law 367 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1984).Google Scholar

19 Report of the ILC, supra note 9 at 218–19.

20 UN Doc. A/CN.4/348, Dec. 11, 1981, at 58, para. 87.

21 Ibid., 104–105.

22 Art. 9 of his Draft Article: see II Yearbook of the International Law Commiaon 172 (1983).

23 Draft Articles on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses: Draft Report of the International Law Commission, UN GAOR, 43rd Sess. at 1, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.463/Add.4 (1991).

24 Report of the ILC, supra note 9 at 236.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid., 237.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid, 239.

29 UN Doc. A/C.6/51/NUW/CRP.94; A/C.6/51/SR.62, Apr. 4, 1997.

30 Professor McCaffrey takes this view of Art 7 of the ILC’s 1994 Draft Articles: see McCaffrey, Stephen C., “An Assessment of the Work of the International Law Commission” (1996) 36 Nat. Resources. J. 297, 309–10.Google Scholar

31 Report of the ILC, supra note g at 291–92.

32 A/C.6/51/NUW/WG/L.4/Add.1, Apr. 3, 1997; and 1997 Convention, supra note 10 at 720.

33 Report of the ILC, supra note 9 at 242.

34 McCaffrey Report, supra note 17 at para. 13.

35 Report of the ILC, supra note 9 at 242.

36 UN Doc. A/C.6/51/SR.15 at 5.

37 Judgment of Sept. 25, 1997, [1997] I-CJ. Rep. 3.

38 Supra note 29.

39 UN Doc. A/C.6/51/SR.62/Add.1

40 UN Res. 51/229, supra note 11. Burundi, China, and Turkey voted against the Convention; notable among the abstainees were Argentina, Egypt, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and Spain.