No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Two Questions concerning Freedom of Navigation on international Rivers
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
The Conference of the International Law Association held at Dubrovnik in 1956 adopted a resolution authorizing its Committee on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers to expand the scope of its work so as to cover all uses including navigation. Accordingly, the writer of this article was invited to report on the navigational uses of rivers, the main objective being to redraft and bring up to date the League of Nations Convention of Barcelona 1921, known as the Convention and Statute on the Régime of Navigable Waterways of International Concern. The Convention and Statute were ratified by 21 states, including Great Britain and France, but not the United States, the U.S.S.R. or the Netherlands. In 1957 India withdrew its acceptance.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1969
References
1 See Report of the Forty-seventh Conference of the I.L.A., p. 242.
2 See league of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 7, 1921–1922Google Scholar, see also Knauth, 's Benedict on Admiralty, 7th ed., vol. 6, pp. 336–346.Google Scholar
3 See Research Project on the Law and Uses of International Rivers, New York University School of Law, 1959, p. 49 (mimeographed).Google Scholar
4 Cf. “The regime of navigable waterways of international concern and the Statute of Barcelona” in this Review 1960, pp. 125–143; especially p. 132.Google Scholar
5 See Report of the fiftieth Conference of the I.L.A., Brussels 1962, pp. 453–469Google Scholar; especially p. 456 and p. 457.
6 See Report of the fifty-second Conference of the I.L.A., Helsinki, 1966, pp. 505–516.Google Scholar
7 Article 1 of the “Projet de Règlement pour la navigation des fleuves internationaux”, adopted as principles by the Institute of International Law at its meeting in Paris in 1934, states inter alia: “Le présent règlement s'applique: 1. aux fleuves dits internationaux, c.à.d. aux cours d'eau qui, dans la partie naturellement navigable de leurs cours, traversent ou séparent deux ou plusieurs Etats, ainsi qu'aux affluents qui présentent les mêmes caractères…”
8 Cf. Statute of Barcelona, article 1, par. 1 sub c: tributaries are to be considered as separate waterways.
9 P.C.I.J., Ser. A no. 23, pp. 26–27 (1929).Google Scholar
10 In his The development of international law by the International Court, London 1958, p. 234.Google Scholar
11 Translation from the French text.
12 See also P.C.I.J. ser. B no. 14, p. 38 (1927), Advisory Opinion concerning the jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube between Galatz and Braila.
13 de Martens, , Recueil VI, p. 142.Google Scholar
14 See N.T.I.R. 1960, o.c, pp. 125–129Google Scholar, and Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn Themis 1947, pp. 188–202.Google Scholar Cf. Ogilvie, Paul Morgan, International Waterways, New York 1920, pp. 180–375Google Scholar; see P. 222 convention of 1177, establishing freedom of fluvial navigation on the Po; Van Eysinga, , “Les fleuves et canaux internationaux, Cours professé à l'Académic de droit international de la Haye, juillet 1923”, Bibliotheca Visseriana, tomus secundus, Lugd. Bat. 1924, p. 141.Google Scholar
15 See H. Walther, Secretary-General of the Central Commission for the navigation of the Rhine, “The International Statute of the Rhine and the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine”, in Transport and Communications Review (United Nations, Transport and Communications Division), vol. II, no 4 (1949), p. 8.Google Scholar
16 See P.C.I.J. ser. B no. 14, p. 39.
17 See B. S. van Nau, Verhandlungen der Central-Commission zu Mainz bei Entwerfung einer interimistischen Instruktion für die Rheinschiffahrt nach der Wiener Konvention vom 24 Merz 1915, Mainz 1818 und 1823 (3 Bände).
18 Art. 1 reads as follows: “La navigation dans tout le cours du Rhin, du point où il devient navigable jusqu'à la mer, soit en descendant, soit en remontant, sera entièrement libre, et ne pourra, sous le rapport du commerce, être interdite à personne…”
Art. 3, however, adds to this article 1: “Les navires appartenant aux sujets des Etats riverains et faisant partie de la navigation rhénane, ne seront point obligés à transborder ou à rompre charge, en passant des eaux du Rhin dans la pleine mer et vice-versa, par le royaume des Pays-Bas. La communication avec la pleine mer, en cas de passage direct et sans rompre charge… aura lieu pour les personnes dont il vient d'être parlé. Lesdits navires auront aussi l'usage de telle jonction artificielle…” See also articles 27, 42 and so on; see “Rheinurkunden-Rijndocumenten”, vol. I (1803–1860)Google Scholar, 's Gravenhage-München und Leipzig 1918, p. 215.
19 So Engelhardt, Ed., Du régime conventionnel des fleuves internationaux, Paris 1879, pp. 77 ff.Google Scholar, and Histoire du droit fluvial conventionnel, Paris 1889, p. 97Google Scholar; de Martens in his report of 1883 to the Institute of International Law and perhaps Adatci, président de la Commission fluviale de Barcelona (L'oeuvre, de Barcelona, p. 41).Google Scholar See van Eysinga, , o.c., p. 140.Google Scholar
20 Van Eysinga, , o.c., pp. 139–144.Google Scholar
21 See Carathéodory, E., Du droit international concernant les grands cours d'eaux, Leipzig 1861, pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar, quoted by van Eysinga, , o.c. pp. 128–129.Google Scholar
22 Rheinurkunden-Rijndocumenten, , vol. I, p. 56Google Scholar; Klüber, , Acten des Wiener Congresses in den Jahren 1814–1815, vol. III, pp. 1–254.Google Scholar
23 O.c., pp. 141–142.Google Scholar See Rheinurkunden-Rijndocumenten, , o.c., p. 124Google Scholar; Klüber, , o.c.Google Scholar
24 Many writers on matters international in the twentieth century enuntiate the same view. So inter alios:
Verzijl, J. H. W., The Jurisprudence of the World Court, vol. I, Leyden 1965, pp. 196–197.Google Scholar “The Court…proceeded (in the Oder case) to delve more deeply by arguing that from the beginning of the codification of international river law at the Congress of Vienna (1815) the solution has been sought…in the idea of a community of interest of riparian States…” “…the Judgment reviewed, must in my opinion, be fully endorsed as a correct statement of the law.”;
François, J. P. A., Grondlijnen van het Volkenrecht, 3d. ed., Zwolle 1967, p. 487 (2nd ed. p. 518).Google Scholar Already in the first edition of his Handboek van het Volkenrecht, vol. I, Zwolle 1931, pp. 487–488Google Scholar François had declared that van Eysinga convincingly had proved this view.
Tammes, A. J. P., Internationaal Publiekrecht, Haarlem 1966, p. 71;Google Scholar
Telders, B. M., Verzamelde Geschriften, vol. IV, Den Haag 1947, p. 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; freedom of navigation to the riparian states (sous le rapport du commerce);
Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law, vol. I, eighth ed., London-New York-Toronto 1955, p. 467Google Scholar, note 2: “But note that Article 109 of the principal Act of the Vienna Congress contains the words “sous le rapport du commerce”, and that according to the views held in certain quarters the “freedom of navigation” is subject to considerable qualifications”. The undersigned may refer to this article (pp. 263 and 273) concerning England's conception of freedom of navigation on international rivers in Europe.
Hyde, Charles Cheney, International Law, vol. I, second ed., Boston 1945, par. 182, p. 563.Google Scholar
Winiarski, B., “Principes Généraux du droit fluvial international”, Recueil des Cows de l'Académu de droit international de la Haye, 1933 Cours III, pp. 163–164.Google Scholar
25 See van Eysinga, , o.c., pp. 142–143Google Scholar; Moore, John Bassett, Digest of International Law, vol. I, Washington 1906, par. 131, pp. 631 ff.Google Scholar
26 Malloy, , Treaties, vol. I, 668Google Scholar; Ch. Fenwick, G., International Law, third ed., New York and London 1948, p. 389.Google Scholar
27 See as to the Navigation on the Danube, pp. 269–273Google Scholar of this Review.
28 See Fenwick, , o.c., pp. 389–390Google Scholar; Moore, John Bassett, o.c., par. 131Google Scholar; Reid, M. D., International Servitudes in law and practice, 1932, p. 153Google Scholar; Hyde, , o.c., p. 531Google Scholar; Hackworth, Green Haywood, Digest of International Law, vol. IV, Washington 1942, par. 363, p. 345Google Scholar; Winiarski, , o.c., p. 140.Google Scholar
29 See Convention Revisée pour la Navigation du Rhin, Rheinurkunden-Rijndocumenten, vol. II. Article 4 of this convention reads: “Pour ce qui concerne les voies navigables mentionneés au premier alinéa de l'article 3 (le Rhin, ses affluents, etc.), le traitement national, sous tous les rapports, sera accordé aux navires, appartenant à la navigation du Rhin et à leurs chargements. See Winiarski, , o.c., p. 168.Google Scholar Ed. Engelhardt, , Histoire du droit fluvial conventionnel, p. 97Google Scholar, writes: En 1868, les délégues de ces Etats se constituèrent en “commission de revision” pour coordonner et simplifier la législation de 1831 qui avait été successivement modifiée sur de nombreux points d'intérêt secondaire. Ils n'hésitèrent pas cette fois à adopter l'amendement que Lord Clancarty avait vainement défendu dans la septième conférence de 1815 et qui spécifiait que le Rhin serait ouvert au commerce et à la navigation de tous les pays; mais la commission rhénane se contenta de la formule, subordonnant le bénéfice à des conditions telles que le fleuve, il est permis de l'affirmer, n'est pas plus accessible qu'auparavant aux marines étrangères.
30 See Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , vol. I, o.c., p. 467 n. 5.Google Scholar
31 See Revue Générale de Droit International Public 1965, p. 276Google Scholar, and Archiv des Völkerrechts 1964/1965, p. 431.Google Scholar
32 Cf. Dahm, Georg, Völkerrecht, vol. I, Stuttgart 1958, p. 626.Google Scholar
33 Grotius, , De iure belli ac pacis II, 2Google Scholar, 13:1, ed. Molhuysen, , Lugduni Batavorum 1919, pp. 147–148Google Scholar; English transl. Kelsey c.s., reprinted 1964, New York-London, pp. 196. 197.
34 See II, 2, 13: 5 ed. Molh. p. 149, Engl. transl. p. 199. See II, 2, 14 ed. Molh. p. 150–151, Engl. transl. pp. 200–201. See II, 2, 15: 1ed. Molh. p. 151, Engl. trans. p. 201. See also Netherlands International Law Review 1960, pp. 126–127.Google Scholar
35 Annuaire de l'Institut 1887–1888, pp. 182–186.Google Scholar
36 Annuaire de l'Institut 1934, pp. 167–175.Google Scholar
37 Annuaire de l'lnstitut de Droit International, 1885–1886, p. 279.Google Scholar
38 Pradier-Fodéré, P., Traité de Droit International Public europeen et américain, vol. II, Paris 1885, par. 730, p. 279.Google Scholar
39 Chamberlain, J. P., The regime of the international rivers Danube and Rhine, New York 1923, pp. 281–283.Google Scholar See for this aspect of the problem the Faber Case, in: Ralston, J. H., Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, Washington 1904, pp. 600 ffGoogle Scholar; see also Briggs, Herbert W., The Law of Nations, second ed., London 1953, pp. 263–268.Google Scholar
40 Fauchille, P., Traité de droit international public, vol. I, 2nd part, Paris 1925, pp. 437 and 442.Google Scholar
41 Winiarsky, B., “Principes généraux du droit fluvial international”, o.c., p. 153.Google Scholar
42 Hyde, , o.c., par. 182, p. 562.Google Scholar See Hackworth, , o.c., pp. 569 ff.Google Scholar; Westlake, John, International Law, second ed. 1910, p. 147.Google Scholar
43 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law, vol. I, eighth ed., pp. 465–466.Google Scholar
44 O.c., p. 274.Google Scholar
45 International Law, vol. I, London 1905, p. 229.Google Scholar
46 “Les fleuves et canaux internationaux”, o.c., p. 144.Google Scholar
47 Published in Telders, B. M., Verzamelde Geschriften, vol. IV, p. 52.Google Scholar
48 See Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , vol. II, seventh ed., fifth impression, Edinburgh 1963, pp. 68–69Google Scholar; François, , Grondlijnen van het Volkenrecht, third edition, Zwolle 1967, pp. 638–629 and 347–352Google Scholar; Telders, B. M., Verzamelde Geschriften, vol. I, pp. 294 ff., especially pp. 296–297 and 299.Google Scholar It is possible nor convenient to enter into this important but complicated topic here.
49 See hereafter p. 281.
50 See before p. 1; see Research Project on the Law and Uses of International Rivers, New York University School of Law 1959, p. 49Google Scholar (mimeographed). This project (221 pages) gives an excellent survey of most of the international rivers throughout the whole world, including all data concerning disputes, negotiations, agreements or technical plans for the development and utilization of water resources. See also: Ogilvie, Paul Morgan, International Waterways, New York 1920Google Scholar; part II is a reference manuel to the treaties, conventions, laws, and other fundamental acts governing the international use of inland waterways, pp. 180–375Google Scholar; see too “Inland Transport Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe”, Provisional list of multilateral and bilateral conventions, treaties agreements etc. concerning inland transport in Europe (original; French), W/Trans/265, 1959; and “Bibliography on the Law and Uses of international rivers, New York University School of Law, 1960 (mimeographed). It would be valuable if information on other international rivers —e.g. in Africa and Asia—were more readily available in published form.
51 The Arbitration Tribunal of Paris in 1899, settling the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, decided in its award that “in times of peace the Rivers Amakuru and Barima shall be open to navigation by the merchant ships of all nations”. According to Stuyt, A. M.The general principles of law as applied by international tribunals to disputes on attribution and exercise of state jurisdiction, The Hague 1946, pp. 56–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar this award has little authority, inter alia by reason of its being ultra vires; the Tribunal was established to determine a boundary line.
52 See de Martens, N.R.G., 15, p. 776Google Scholar; see also Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law I, 8th ed., p. 468Google Scholar; Hajnal, Henri, Le droit du Danube international, The Hague 1929.Google Scholar
53 Convention relative au régime de la navigation sur le Danube; see The International Law Quarterly 1948 II, pp. 727 ff.Google Scholar
54 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , o.c., pp. 469–470.Google Scholar Roberto Sandiford, professor at the University of Rome in Convenzioni e problemi internazionali in materia di navigazione fluviale ed uso delle acque interne (Estratto da “La Marina Mercantile” anno XIVottobre 1961) writes:…accordi di Belgrado del 1948, che non furono accettati dagli occidentali, onde, praticamente, il fiume è ogni sotto il controllo dell' U.R.S.S. e suoi satellite. See also Baxter, R. R., The Law of International Waterways, Harvard University Press 1964, pp. 135–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55 Cf. Kunz, Josef L., “The Danube régime and the Belgrade Conference”, A.J.I.L., vol. 43 (1949), pp. 110.Google Scholar See also Gorove, Stephen, Law and politics of the Danube; an interdisciplinary study, The Hague 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56 According to article 15 of the Convention the French and Russian languages are the official ones.
57 Cf. art. 25: Le trafic local des voyageurs et des marchandises et le trafic entre les ports d'un même Etat ne sont ouverts à un pavilion étranger que conformément à la Réglementation nationale dudit Etat danubien.
58 See Kunz, , o.c., p. 112Google Scholar; Prigrada, Anthony, International Agreements concerning the Danube, 1953, p. 21.Google Scholar
59 Cf. Prigrada, , o.c., p. 17.Google Scholar
60 Cf. Wegener, W., Die Internationale Donau, Gottingen 1951, p. 43.Google Scholar
61 Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 1956, Vol. II, p. 1838.Google Scholar
62 See van Eysinga, W. J. M., “Les fleuves et canaux internationaux,” Bibliotheca Visseriana, tomus secundus, Leyden 1924, pp. 142–143Google Scholar; Moore, John Bassett, Digest of International Law, I, Washington 1906, par. 131, pp. 631–638.Google ScholarNetherlands International Law Review, 1960, pp. 127–128.Google Scholar
63 See Baxter, R. R., Documents on the St. Lawrence Seaway, London 1960, p. 7Google Scholar; Baxter, R. R., The Law of International Waterways, Cambridge, Mass. 1964, Harvard University Press, pp. 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64 Baxter, , Documents, p. 4Google Scholar; Cohen, Maxwell and Nadeau, Gilbert, “The legal framework of the St. Lawrence Seaway”, University of Illinois Law Forum, vol. 1959, Spring Number, p. 33.Google Scholar
65 Documents, p. 4.
66 Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, December 21, 1961, p. 7.Google Scholar
67 See Baxter, , Waterways, p. 95Google Scholar: “Since vessels travelling the lengths of the Seaway will pass through both Canadian and United States territory, the two countries have agreed upon uniform rules of navigation”.
68 Baxter, , Documents, p. 70.Google Scholar See as to the Mitchourinsk case Revue générale de Droit International Public, 1965, p. 773Google Scholar (at first refusal, after five days consent to a Russian vessel to sail up the St. Lawrence).
69 Winiarski, B., “Principes généraux du droit fluvial international”, Recueil Cours Ac. de dr. intern. III 1933, p. 152.Google Scholar
70 See before, p. 264.
71 Cano, , The Uruguay River, presented to the Rivers Committee of the I.L.A., 1961, p. XI.Google Scholar
72 “Signé le 24 janvier 1967 à Buenos Aires”; see Revue Générale de Droit International Public, 1967, p. 294.Google Scholar
73 See Espiell, H. Gros, “Le régime juridique du Rio de la Plata”, Annuaire français de Droit International, 1964, pp. 725–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74 League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 7, pp. 36–63Google Scholar; Knauth, 's Benedict on Admiralty, 7th ed., 1958, vol. 6, pp. 336 and foil.Google Scholar
75 See Report of the fifty-second Conference, held at Helsinki in 1966, of the International Law Association, pp. 505–511.Google Scholar
76 Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International 1887–1888, pp. 181–188.Google Scholar
77 See van Eysinga, W. J. M., “Les fleuves et canaux internationaux”, Bibliotheca Visseriana, tomus secundus, Lugduni Batavorum 1924, p. 132.Google Scholar
78 Paris 1927, p. 50.
79 Cf., however, the articles 3, 4, 5, 18.
80 Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 1956, Teil II.Google Scholar
81 See Ruzté, David, “Le régime juridique de la Moselle”, Annuaire Français de Droit International 1964, pp. 764 ff.Google Scholar
82 See inter alia art. 331 treaty of Versailles (Germany), Saint-Germain art. 291 (Austria), Neuilly art. 219 (Bulgaria). Cf. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht 1, 8th ed., p. 470.Google Scholar
83 Convention relative au régime de la navigation sur le Danube; see The International Law Quarterly 1948 II, pp. 727 ff.Google Scholar See chapter A of this article, p. 271.
84 Articles 13 and 26.
85 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, I, 8th ed., p. 467 n. 5.Google Scholar
86 See Revue G´nérale de Droit International Public 1965, p. 276Google Scholar, and Archiv des Völkerrechts 1964/1965, p. 431.Google Scholar
87 See André, Jean-Claude, L'evolution du Statut des fleuves internationaux d'Afrique Noire, in Revue Juridique et Politique 1965, vol. 19, p. 285.Google Scholar
88 Baxter, R. R., Documents on the St. Lawrence Seaway, London 1960, p. 2–5.Google Scholar
89 See the Seaway, St. Lawrence Authority Act of Canada (1951, amended June and August 1956)Google Scholar, Baxter, , o.c., pp. 19–25.Google Scholar
90 See the Seaway, St. Lawrence Act of the United States (1954)Google Scholar, Baxter, , o.c., pp. 25–31.Google Scholar
91 O.c., p. 4.Google Scholar
92 See Maxwell Cohen, professor of law Me. Gill University, Montreal, and Gilbert Nadeau, special assistant to the Deputy Minister of Transport, Ottawa, The legal framework of the Seaway, St. Lawrence, reprinted from University of Illinois Law ForumGoogle Scholar, Legal Problems of International Trade, vol. 1959, p. 50Google Scholar