Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:53:31.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Damming and Infrastructural Development of the Indus River Basin: Strengthening the Provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2017

Durgeshree RAMAN
Durgeshree RAMAN*
Affiliation:
The University of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Whilst the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 allows for damning and infrastructural development in the Indus River Basin, it does so without factoring in environmental considerations. This is because environmental standards in international law, except those related to pollution control, were largely absent when the Treaty was negotiated in the 1950s. Given the increasing list of development-related disputes between India and Pakistan, and their aspirations for further damming and other infrastructural works in the Basin, this paper seeks to close the gaps in the Treaty’s provisions and developments in international environmental law to date. To do so effectively, the paper analyzes the relevant provisions of the UN Watercourses Convention, supplemented with an examination of the European regional framework. Based on these, it proposes changes to the Treaty so that both India and Pakistan are able to work within a legal framework which not only provides for environmental impact assessments for planned projects, but enhances monitoring, assessments, and reporting. This will ensure that such developments are not only environmentally sound but also help to alleviate some of the disputes between India and Pakistan.

Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , July 2018 , pp. 372 - 402
Copyright
© Asian Journal of International Law 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Teaching Fellow, Te Pringa – Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

References

1. The Indus Waters Treaty, 19 September 1960, 419 U.N.T.S. 125 (entered into force 12 January 1961) [Indus Waters Treaty].

2. Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, 21 May 1997, UN Doc. A/RES/51/229 (1997), 36 I.L.M. 700 (entered into force 17 August 2014) [UN Watercourses Convention]. See also SALMAN, Salman M. A. and UPRETY, Kishor, Conflict and Cooperation on South Asia’s International Rivers: A Legal Perspective (Washington, DC: World Bank Publications, 2002)Google Scholar at 27 and 32, ftns 75 and 90, respectively, and accompanying texts; and MCCAFFREY, Stephen, The Law of International Watercourses, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) at 510Google Scholar.

3. HILLEL, Daniel, Out of the Earth: Civilization and the Life of the Soil (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1991)Google Scholar at 146.

4. NAQVI, Saiyid Ali, Indus Waters and Social Change: The Evolution and Transition of Agrarian Society in Pakistan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar at 8.

5. Shripad DHARMADHIKARY, “Mountains of Concrete: Dam Building in the Himalayas” (December 2008), online: International Rivers <https://www.internationalrivers.org/sites/default/files/attached-files/ir_himalayas.pdf> at 6.

6. Asianics Agro-Development International, “Tarbela Dam and Related Aspects of the Indus River Basin: Pakistan” (November 2000), online: World Commission on Dams <http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.dams.org/ContentPages/1311315.pdf> at vi.

7. Daniel SELIGMAN, “World’s Major Rivers: An Introduction to International Water Law with Case Studies” (November 2008), online: Colorado River Commission of Nevada <http://www.carecprogram.org/uploads/events/2010/2nd-ELDP/Worlds-Major-Rivers.pdf> at 52; “Large Dams in India” India-Water Resources Information System (31 March 2014), online: India-Water Resources Information System <http://india-wris.nrsc.gov.in/wrpinfo/index.php?title=Large_Dams_in_India>; Central Water Commission, “National Register of Large Dams” (2012–2016), online: Central Water Commission <http://www.cwc.nic.in/main/downloads/New%20NRLD.pdf>; and “Projects” Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (12 December 2016), online: Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority <http://www.wapda.gov.pk/>.

8. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), “The Lower Indus River: Balancing Development and Maintenance of Wetland Ecosystems and Dependent Livelihoods” (2003), online: IUCN <http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/indus.pdf>.

9. Dharmadhikary, supra note 5 at 25; DHARMADHIKARY, Shripad, Unravelling Bhakra: Assessing the Temple Resurgent India (Badwani: Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, 2005)Google Scholar at 199; and IUCN, ibid., at 2.

10. IUCN, supra note 8. See also SCUDDER, Thayer, Global Threats, Global Futures: Living with Declining Living Standards (Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and MIMURA, Nobuo, ed., Asia-Pacific Coasts and Their Management: States of Environment (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008) at 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Agreement between the Government of India and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Regarding the Salal Hydro-Electric Plant, 14 April 1978, Indian Treaty Series 18 (entered into force 14 April 1978) [Salal Agreement]; and Nausheen WASI, “Harnessing the Indus: Perspectives from Pakistan” (2009) 3 Epilogue 34 at 35.

12. Raymond LAFITTE, “Baglihar Hydroelectric Plant: Expert Determination on Points of Difference Referred by the Government of Pakistan under the Provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty—Executive Summary” École Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (12 February 2007), online: The World Bank <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1171996340255/BagliharSummary.pdf>. Only the Executive Summary is accessible as the full report can only be disclosed and disseminated by the Parties themselves, according to their own procedures. See also Salman M.A. SALMAN, “The Baglihar Difference and Its Resolution Process—A Triumph for the Indus Waters Treaty?” (2008) 10 Water Policy 105 at 113.

13. Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (India/Pakistan), Partial Award of 18 February 2013, [1995] P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 82842; and Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (India/Pakistan), Final Award of 20 December 2013, [2013] P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 109924.

14. Khalid MUSTAFA, “Pak-India Talks on Kishenganga and Ratle Hydropower Projects Fail” The News International (21 July 2016), online: The News International <https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/136475-Pak-India-talks-on-Kishenganga-and-Ratle-hydropower-projects-fail>; and The World Bank, “World Bank Declares Pause to Protect Indus Waters Treaty” The World Bank (12 December 2016), online: The World Bank <http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/12/12/world-bank-declares-pause-protect-indus-water-treaty>.

15. Michael CLARKE, “System-Scale Hydropower Planning for the Indus River Basin, Pakistan”, Paper presented at the 35th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, Florence, Italy, 20–23 April 2015.

16. Ibid., at 2.

17. Ibid., at 3–5.

18. Dawn.Com, “Work on Diamer-Bhasha Dam to Begin Next Year” (17 December 2016), online: Dawn <http://www.dawn.com/news/1302873>.

19. “Hydro Electric Projects” India-Water Resources Information System (27 October 2015), online: India-Water Resources Information System <http://india-wris.nrsc.gov.in/wrpinfo/index.php?title=Hydro_Electric_Projects>.

20. P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 109924, supra note 13.

21. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1.

22. Ibid., at preamble.

23. UN Watercourses Convention, supra note 2 at preamble, para. 4.

24. Ibid., at para. 5.

25. Ibid., art. 5.

26. ZENTNER, Matthew, Design and Impact of Water Treaties: Managing Climate Change (Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 130.

27. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at arts. I(5), II(1).

28. Ibid., at arts. I(6), III(1).

29. PRISCOLI, Jerome Delli and WOLF, Aaron T., Managing and Transforming Water Conflicts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 190. Thus, while India’s claim to absolute territorial sovereignty was dismissed, Pakistan’s prior appropriation was taken into account in working out an equitable distribution of the Indus waters. See MICHEL, Aloys Arthur, The Indus Rivers: A Study of the Effects of Partition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967)Google Scholar at 198–9 for a discussion of these principles.

30. Salman and Uprety, supra note 2 at 57.

31. FISHER, D.E., The Law and Governance of Water Resources: The Challenge of Sustainability (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 216.

32. Ibid., at 217.

33. Jagat S. MEHTA, “The Indus Water Treaty: A Case Study in the Resolution of an International River Basin Conflict” (1988) 12 Natural Resources Forum 69 at 73.

34. See Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at art. I(15), which defines the term “interference with the waters” as any act of withdrawal or any man-made obstruction to the flow which cause a change in the volume of the daily flow of the waters excluding any insignificant and incidental change in the volume of the daily flow.

35. Ibid., art. 1(10), and which includes household, municipal, and industrial purposes.

36. Ibid., art. 1(11), and which includes navigation, flood control, fishing, and wildlife protection.

37. Ibid., art. II(2), (3).

38. Ibid., art. III(2).

39. India’s use of the waters of the Western Rivers, which have been allocated to Pakistan, was one of the major issues raised during the negotiations of the Treaty. India felt that, as the upper riparian of the Indus river system, which runs for large stretches in its territory before entering Pakistan, there would have to be some uses allowed for it. See Salman, supra note 12 at 106.

40. Mary MINER, Gauri PATANKAR, Shama GAMKHAR, and David J. EATON., “Water Sharing between India and Pakistan: A Critical Evaluation of the Indus Water Treaty” (2009) 34 Water International 204 at 206.

41. See Second Report on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, by Mr. Stephen C. McCaffrey, Special Rapporteur (1986), UN Doc. A/CN.4/399, at 109, para. 88.

42. “Run-of-River Plant” has been defined as a hydroelectric plant that develops power without Live Storage as an integral part of the plant, except for Pondage and Surcharge Storage. See Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at annexure D, art. (2)(g).

43. Ibid., at annexure D, art. 8.

44. “Storage work” has been defined to mean a work constructed for the purpose of impounding the waters of a stream, with exceptions. Ibid., at annexure E, art. 2.

45. Ibid., at annexure E, art. (7).

46. Ibid., art. IV(6).

47. P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 82842, supra note 13 at para. 372.

48. See discussion of the Madrid Declaration of 1911 and other earlier legal instruments, in Salman M.A. SALMAN “The Helsinki Rules, the UN Watercourses Convention and the Berlin Rules: Perspectives on International Water Law” (2007) 23 Water Resources Development 625 at 628.

49. UN Watercourses Convention, supra note 2 at art. 7(1).

50. DRAPER, Stephen E., Sharing Water in Times of Scarcity: Guidelines and Procedures in the Development of Effective Agreements to Share Water Across Political Boundaries (Reston, VA: ASCE Publications, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 16.

51. See Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community, 7 August 2000, 40 I.L.M. 321 (entered into force 22 September 2003), art. 1(1).

52. According to Sreenivasa RAO, a member of the Drafting Committee on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, Volume I, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1994, at 180, para. 12.

53. Ibid., at 103.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid.

56. See Alabama Claims of the United States of America v. Great Britain, Tribunal of Arbitration Award of 14 September 1872, XXIX Reports of International Arbitral Awards 125; and MOORE, John Bassett, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party, Together with Appendices Containing the Treaties Relating to Such Arbitrations, and Historical Legal Notes on Other International Arbitrations Ancient and Modern, and on the Domestic Commissions of the United States for the Adjustment of International Claims (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1898)Google Scholar at 572–3 and 612.

57. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, Volume I, supra note 52 at 103.

58. Alan E. BOYLE, “State Responsibility and International Liability for Injurious Consequences of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law: A Necessary Distinction?” (1990) 39 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 1 at 14–15; PISILLO-MAZZESCHI, R., “Forms of International Responsibility for Environmental Harm” in Tullio SCOVAZZI and Francesco FRANCIONI, eds., International Responsibility for Environmental Harm (London: Graham & Trotman, 1991)Google Scholar, at 24; and Gunther HANDL, “National Uses of Transboundary Air Resources: The International Entitlement Issue Reconsidered” (1986) 26 Natural Resources Journal 405 at 429.

59. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, Volume I, supra note 52 at 103.

60. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), [2010] I.C.J. Rep. 14 at para. 101.

61. Corfu Channel (Merits) (United Kingdom v. Albania), [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4 at 22.

62. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), [1997] I.C.J. Rep. 7 at para. 140.

63. UN Watercourses Convention, supra note 2 at art. 7(2).

64. P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 82842, supra note 13 at para. 373.

65. Ibid.

66. Ibid.

67. Ibid., at para. 374.

68. GULHATI, Niranjan Das, Indus Waters Treaty: An Exercise in International Mediation (Mumbai: Allied Publishers, 1973)Google Scholar at 266.

69. Ibid.

70. Ibid.

71. P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 82842, supra note 13 at para. 375.

72. Ibid., at para. 223.

73. UN Watercourses Convention, supra note 2 at art. 20.

74. Ibid., art. 23.

75. Ibid., art. 25(3).

76. Ibid., art. IV(6).

77. Ibid., art. IV(10).

78. KHAN, Muhammad Zafar and AKBAR, Ghulam, “In the Indus Delta It Is No More the Mighty Indus” in Philip J. BOON and Paul J. RAVEN, eds., River Conservation and Management (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012)Google Scholar, at 71.

79. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at art. VII(1).

80. Ibid., art. VII(2).

81. Pulp Mills, supra note 60 at 14.

82. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, supra note 62 at para. 79; and see also Owen MCINTYRE “The World Court’s Ongoing Contribution to International Water Law: The Pulp Mills Case Between Argentina and Uruguay” (2011) 4 Water Alternatives 124 at 136.

83. McIntyre, ibid.

84. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, Volume II (Part II), UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1994/Add.l (Part 2) at 96 for a commentary on draft art. 5.

85. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, supra note 62 at para. 140.

86. Ibid.

87. Peter H.F. BEKKER “Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgement” (1998) 92 American Journal of International Law 273 at 276.

88. Afshin A-KHAVARI and Donald R. ROTHWELL “The ICJ and the Danube Dam Case: A Missed Opportunity for International Environmental Law?” (1998) 22 Melbourne University Law Review 507 at 528.

89. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, supra note 62 at para. 140.

90. A-Khavari and Rothwell, supra note 88 at 530. However, Vice-President Weeramantry, in his separate opinion, explicitly supported EIA as an emerging area of customary environmental law and, in endorsing EIA, he was of the opinion that such an obligation, which is an application of the precautionary approach, exists independently of a treaty obligation. See Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, supra note 62, Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, at 112–13; and E. HEY “International Water Law Placed in a Contemporary Environmental Context: the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Case” (2000) 25 Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere 303 at 306.

91. UN Watrcourses Convention, supra note 1 at art. 9.

92. Ibid., art. 11.

93. LEB, Christina, Cooperation in the Law of Transboundary Water Resources (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 131.

94. MIRZA, M. Monirul Qader, ed., The Ganges Water Diversion: Environmental Effects and Implications (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 210.

95. Phoebe N. OKOWA, “Procedural Obligations in International Environmental Agreements” (1997) 67 British Yearbook of International Law 275 at 289.

96. UN Watercourses Convention, supra note 1 at art. 12.

97. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, Volume II (Part II), supra note 84 at 111.

98. McCaffrey, supra note 2 at 473.

99. UN Watercourses Convention, supra note 2 at art. 12.

100. Pulp Mills, supra note 60 at paras. 204, 205.

101. P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 82842, supra note 13 at para. 450.

102. However, see arts. 29, 31 of the Berlin Rules on Water Resources (“Helsinki Revision”) in International Law Association, “International Law Association Rules on Water Resources” (2004), online: ILA <http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/32>.

103. P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 82842, supra note 13 at para. 205.

104. Ibid.

105. Ibid., at para. 120.

106. Ibid., at para. 112.

107. McIntyre, supra note 82 at 124.

108. P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 109924, supra note 13 at para. 98.

109. Ibid., at paras. 99–100.

110. Ibid., at para. 100.

111. Ibid., at para. 101.

112. Ibid.

113. Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, 17 March 1992, 1936 U.N.T.S. 269 (entered into force 6 October 1996) [UNECE Water Convention].

114. “Transboundary impact” means “any significant adverse effect on the environment resulting from a change in the conditions of transboundary waters caused by a human activity, the physical origin of which is situated wholly or in part within an area under the jurisdiction of a party, within an area under the jurisdiction of another party”. See ibid.. art. 1(2).

115. Ibid., art. 3(1)(h). For “other means of assessment”, reference has been made to the SEA Protocol, which makes SEA relevant for the purpose of fulfilling the obligations under this provision: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, “Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context” (entered into force 11 July 2011), online: UNECE <http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/legaltexts/protocolenglish.pdf > UN Doc. ECE/MP.EIA/2003/ [SEA Protocol]. Also see MARSDEN, Simon and WARNER, Robin, eds., Transboundary Environmental Governance: Inland, Coastal and Marine Perspectives (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2012)Google Scholar at 149.

116. UNECE Water Convention, supra note 113 at art. 3(1)(i).

117. Ibid., art. 9(2)(j).

118. See United Nations Economic and Social Council, Economic Commission for Europe, Integrated Management of Water and Related Ecosystems: Draft Guide to Implementing the Convention, Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Fifth Session, Geneva, 10–12 November 2009, UN Doc. ECE/MP.WAT/2009/L.2, at 91, ftn 94.

119. Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, 25 February 1991, 30 I.L.M. 800 (entered into force 10 September 1997) [Espoo (EIA) Convention].

120. Ibid., art. 2(1). “Environmental impact assessment” has been defined as “a national procedure for evaluating the likely impact of a proposed activity on the environment”. “Impact” constitutes “any effect caused by a proposed activity on the environment”. “Transboundary impact” means “any impact, not exclusively of a global nature, within an area under the jurisdiction of a Party caused by a proposed activity the physical origin of which is situated wholly or in part within the area under the jurisdiction of another Party”. See ibid., at arts. 1(vi), (vii), and (viii), respectively.

121. Ibid., art. 1(v); and European Commission, “Guidance on the Application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure for Large-Scale Transboundary Projects” (2013), online: EC <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Transboundry%20EIA%20Guide.pdf> at 3.

122. Espoo (EIA) Convention, supra note 119, at appendix I, para. 11.

123. Ibid., at appendix III.

124. Ibid., at arts. 2(3), (4).

125. Ibid., art. 3(2).

126. Ibid., art. 2(7).

127. Ibid., art. 4(1) and appendix II.

128. Ibid., art. 6(1).

129. Ibid., art. 7.

130. SEA Protocol, supra note 115.

131. Espoo (EIA) Convention, supra note 119 at art. 1.

132. Ibid., art. 2(6).

133. Ibid., at arts. 2(5), 4(1).

134. Ibid., art. 4(2) and annex I, para. 11.

135. Ibid., art. 7(1).

136. Ibid., art. 7(2).

137. See ABAZA, Hussein, BISSET, Ron, and SADLER, Barry, Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach (Geneva: UNEP, 2004)Google Scholar at 87. See also the corresponding SEA and the EIA Directives.

138. VAN HOOYDONK, Eric, The Impact of EU Environmental Law on Ports and Waterways (Antwerp: Maklu Publishers, 2006)Google Scholar at 57.

139. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at art. VIII(3).

140. Ibid., art. VIII(4).

141. Ibid., art. VIII(1)(a), (b), respectively.

142. Ibid., at arts. VIII(4)(a), IX(1).

143. UN Watercourses Convention, supra note 2 at art. 17(1), (2).

144. Pulp Mills, supra note 60 at paras. 144–6.

145. See Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 253 at paras. 46, 49; and Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application) (Nicaragua v. Honduras), [1988] I.C.J. Rep. 69 at para. 94.

146. North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 3 at para. 85.

147. Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland, [1931] P.C.I.J. Series A/B No. 42 107, at 116.

148. Pulp Mills, supra note 60 at para. 147.

149. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, supra note 62 at para. 112.

150. Ibid., at para. 53. See also Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), [1996] I.C.J. Rep. 226 at para. 29.

151. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ibid., at para. 112.

152. UN Watercourses Convention, supra note 1 at arts. 17(2), 33(1), (2).

153. The UN General Assembly has adopted a Declaration on Fact-finding by the United Nations in the Field of Maintenance of International Peace and Security in which it defined “fact-finding” to mean “acquiring detailed knowledge about the factual circumstances of any dispute or situation”. See Declaration on Fact-Finding by the United Nations in the Field of the Maintenance of International Peace and Security, GA Res. 46/59, UN Doc. A/RES/46/59 (1991), at annex, para. 2.

154. Wasi, supra note 11, at 35.

155. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at art. IX.

156. P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 82842, supra note 13 at para. 444.

157. TABASSUM, Shaista “The Role of CBMs in Resolving Non-Military Issues Between India and Pakistan: A Case Study of the Indus Water Treaty” in Moonis AHMAR, ed., The Challenge of Confidence-Building Measures in South Asia (New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications Pvt Ltd, 2001)Google Scholar, at 396.

158. Ibid.

159. Agreement between the Government of India and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Regarding the Salal Hydro-Electric Plant [1978] INTSer 18 (entered into force 14 April 1978).

160. Wasi, supra note 11 at 35. See also Salal Agreement, supra note 11 at art. 1, which lists all the salient features of the plant.

161. JAYAPALAN, N., Foreign Policy of India (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 2001)Google Scholar at 273; and BUDANIA, Rajpal, India’s National Security Dilemma: The Pakistan Factor and India’s Policy Response (New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company, 2001)Google Scholar at 231.

162. MATTOO, Amitabh, “India’s International Relations: The Search for Stability, Space and Strength” in Alyssa AYRAS and Philip OLDENBURG, eds., India Briefing: Takeoff at Last? (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2005)Google Scholar, at 97; and GUPTA, Kulwant Rai, India-Pakistan Relations with Special Reference to Kashmir (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 2006)Google Scholar at 181.

163. Mattoo, ibid., at 97.

164. TABASSUM, Shaista, River Water Sharing Problem Between India and Pakistan: Case Study of the Indus Waters Treaty (Colombo: Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, 2004)Google Scholar at 40.

165. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, “India-Pakistan Joint Statement on Tulbul Navigation/Wullar Barrage Project” (28 March 2012), online: MEA <http://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/19084/India++Pakistan+Joint+Statement+on+Tulbul+NavigationWullar+Barrage+Project>.

166. Miner, supra note 40 at 207.

167. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at annexure D, paras. 8(a), (e).

168. Ibid., at para. 8(c).

169. Ibid., at para. 8(e).

170. See Lafitte, supra note 12 at para. 2 on the points of differences referred to by Pakistan and India.

171. Dale LAUTENBACH, “World Bank Names Neutral Expert on Baglihar” The World Bank News Release No:2005/463/SAR (10 May 2005), online: The World Bank <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,contentMDK:20485918~menuPK:34463~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html>.

172. Wasi, supra note 11 at 36.

173. Lafitte, supra note 12.

174. See DINAR, Ariel, MCCAFFREY, Stephen, DINAR, Shlomi, and MCKINNEY, Daene, Bridges Over Water: Understanding Transboundary Water Conflict, Negotiation and Cooperation (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 278–9 for a full analysis of the decision.

175. Lafitte, supra note 12 at 5.

176. Ibid.

177. Zubair Ahmad DAR, “Power Projects in Jammu & Kashmir: Controversy, Law and Justice”, Harvard Law and International Society, Paper Presented to LIDS Working Papers 2011–2012, at 12.

178. Lafitte, supra note 12 at 5.

179. Dar, supra note 177 at 12.

180. See Balraj K. SIDHU, “The Kishenganga Arbitration—Transboundary Water Resources Governance” (2013) 43 Environmental Policy and Law 147.

181. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, “Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2506 to be Answered on 25082011” (25 August 2011), online: Archive.Is <http://archive.is/YLCZs>.

182. Tabassum, supra note 164 at 42–3.

183. Ibid.

184. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at annexure G, para. 2(b).

185. Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (India/Pakistan), Order on the Interim Measures of 23 September 2011, [2011] P.C.A. Case No. PCA 59368, at 2.

186. Provided that such generation is conducted in accordance with Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 21 at annexure D.

187. P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 82842, supra note 13 at para. 376.

188. Ibid., at para. 452.

189. See Durgeshree RAMAN, “Review of the Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration Award: An Ecological Perspective” (2014) 3 Indian Journal of International Arbitration 43 for an analysis of the Final Award; P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 109924, supra note 13.

190. P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 82842, supra note 13 at para. 453.

191. See P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 109924, supra note 13. “Cumec” means a cubic metre per second.

192. PCA Press Release, “Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India): Court of Arbitration Concludes Hearing on the Merits” (The Hague, 1 September 2012), online: <https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1685>.

193. See also P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 82842, supra note 13 at paras. 445–54.

194. ABBASI, Arshad H., Indus Water Treaty Between India and Pakistan (Islamabad: Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency, 2011)Google Scholar at 15.

195. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at art. XII(3).

196. Brahma CHELLANEY, “Securing the Indus Treaty” The Hindu (5 August 2016), online: The Hindu <http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/brahma-chellaney-on-indus-treaty-securing-the-indus-treaty/article8943790.ece>.

197. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at art. VI(1)(a)–(d).

198. Ibid., art. VI(1)(e).

199. P.C.A. Case No. PK-IN 109924, supra note 13 at para. 75.

200. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at art. VI(2).

201. River depth and width variation is not required to be assessed, as such variations are forbidden under the Indus Waters Treaty.

202. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at art. VIII(4)(c).

203. Ibid., art. VIII(4)(a).

204. CHELLANEY, Brahma, Water: Asia’s New Battleground (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011)Google Scholar at 295.

205. Indus Waters Treaty, supra note 1 at art. VI(8).

206. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy, O.J. L327/1, 22 December 2000 [European Water Framework Directive].

207. Herwig UNNERSTALL “Editoriale” (2012) 17 Economia e Diritto Agroalimentare 343 at 343.

208. European Water Framework Directive, supra note 206 at art. 1(a), (b).

209. Ibid., art. 2(22).

210. Ibid., art. 4.

211. Ibid., art. 2(8), (9).

212. European Communities, “Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): Guidance Document No 4”, Produced by Working Group 2.2—HMWB, online: EC <https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f9b057f4-4a91-46a3-b69a-e23b4cada8ef/Guidance%20No%204%20-%20heavily%20modified%20water%20bodies%20-%20HMWB%20(WG%202.2).pdf> at 12.

213. European Water Framework Directive, supra note 206 at art. 2(9). See also art. 4(3), which spells out the test for designation.

214. See Angel BORJA and Michael ELLIOTT, “What Does ‘Good Ecological Potential’ Mean, Within the European Water Framework Directive?” (2007) 54 Marine Pollution Bulletin 1559 for how MEP is calculated.

215. European Water Framework Directive, supra note 206 at annex V, s. 1.2.5.

216. European Communities, supra note 212 at 5 and 40.

217. European Water Framework Directive, supra note 206 at annex V, table 1.2.5; Royal Haskoning, “Management Strategies and Mitigation Measures for the Inland Navigation Sector in Relation to Ecological Potential for Inland Waterways”, Association of Inland Navigation Authorities, Final Report, March 2008, online: AINA <http://www.aina.org.uk/docs/AINAWFDReport2008.pdf> at 3.

218. KAMPA, E., Heavily Modified Water Bodies: Synthesis of 34 Case Studies in Europe (Berlin: Springer, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 144; and European Communities, supra note 212 at 57.

219. See European Commission, “Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): Guidance Document No. 13—Overall Approach to the Classification of Ecological Status and Ecological Potential” (2003), Produced by Working Group 2A, online: EC <https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/06480e87-27a6-41e6-b165-0581c2b046ad/Guidance%20No%2013%20-%20Classification%20of%20Ecological%20Status%20(WG%20A).pdf>.

220. European Water Framework Directive, supra note 206 at art. 4(1)(a)(iii).

221. Borja and Elliott, supra note 214 at 1559.

222. European Commission, “Ecological Flows in the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive: Guidance Document No. 31” (2015), online: EC <https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/4063d635-957b-4b6f-bfd4-b51b0acb2570/Guidance%20No%2031%20-%20Ecological%20flows%20(final%20version).pdf> at 52.

223. Royal Haskoning, supra note 217 at 3.

224. National Research Council, Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992)Google Scholar; see also HIGGS, Eric, Nature by Design: People, Natural Process, and Ecological Restoration (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003)Google Scholar; and CALLICOTT, J. Baird, “Postmodern Ecological Restoration: Choosing Appropriate Temporal and Spatial Scales” in Kevin DELAPLANTE, Bryson BROWN, and Kent A. PEACOCK, eds., Philosophy of Ecology (Oxford: Elsevier, 2011), at 312–15Google Scholar.

225. Borja and Elliott, supra note 214 at 1561.

226. Kampa, supra note 218 at 111.

227. European Commission, supra note 222 at 71.

228. Ibid., at 57.

229. Ibid., at 71.

230. Ibid., at 93.

231. As per art. 5 analysis.

232. European Water Framework Directive, supra note 206 at art. 11(3)(e).

233. European Commission, supra note 222 at 63.

234. European Water Framework Directive, supra note 206 at preamble, para. 41.

235. Ana BARREIRA, “Dams in Europe—The Water Framework Directive and the World Commission on Dams Recommendations: A Legal and Policy Analysis” WWF (January 2004), online: WWF <http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wfddamsineurope.pdf> at 8.

236. European Water Framework Directive, supra note 206 at art. 4(7).

237. Barreira, supra note 235 at 41.

238. European Water Framework Directive, supra note 206 at art. 4(7)–(9).

239. Ibid., at annex VII, paras. A(2), A(4.1), A(5), A(7), A(8), respectively.

240. Ibid., at annex VII, paras. B(1)–(4).

241. Ibid., art. 13(3).

242. Ibid., art. 3(4).

243. Ibid., art. 4(7)(b).

244. NIXDORF, Brigitte, REKTINS, Atis, and MISCHKE, Ute, “Standards and Thresholds of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)—Phytoplankton and Lakes” in Michael SCHMIDT, et. al. eds., Standards and Thresholds for Impact Assessment (Berlin: Springer, 2008),Google Scholar at 303.

245. For more information, visit International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (IKSR), online: IKSR <http://www.iksr.org/index.php?id=12&L=3>; and International Commission for the Protection of the Danube (ICPDR), online: ICPDR <http://www.icpdr.org/main/>.

246. See Götz REICHERT “Transboundary Water Cooperation in Europe—A Successful Multidimensional Regime?” (2016) 1 Brill Research Perspectives in International Water Law 1.

247. European Water Framework Directive, supra note 206 at art. 13(7).

248. Reichert, supra note 246.