102 / International Watercourses Law and Its Application in South Asia Development and Codification of International Watercourses Law / 103

Download 237 Kb.
Size237 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6

102 / International Watercourses Law and Its Application in South Asia Development and Codification of International Watercourses Law / 103

Chapter- Two
Development and Codification of International Watercourses Law

2.1 Introduction

The availability of and demand for water was not a problem until the 1950s except in a few countries with arid and semi-arid climates.1 Thus, there were very few conflicts and disputes in this area except in the western part of the United States and some parts of the Middle East.2 In fact, the development of IWL is a recent phenomenon in international relations. As a consequence of the increase in various competing uses, giving rise to increasing disputes and conflicts, the necessity for laws to resolve the issues was direly felt. In this context, various state practices, concepts and rules emerged. However, the development and codification of such rules were undertaken on a piece-meal basis, not based on a holistic framework or approach.


s the human powers to control, divert and use the mighty rivers through scientific innovation increased, competing as well as complementary uses, such as, recreation, irrigation, hydropower, industrial, and drinking water have put even greater strains on finite resources. As a result, hundred of dams and reservoirs have been constructed and water delivered far distances to where it was needed; that is to say, technology helped undertake mammoth water projects. Such activities, not surprisingly, led to conflict amongst communities and nations. This was exacerbated in the areas where water was already scarce.
The International Law Commission (ILC), an official body of the United Nations, drafted and adopted the UNCIW. Several principles enunciated in it will be critically assessed, by considering the diverging interests and views of states and their representatives, including the views of the Special Rapporteurs.3
There are more than 300 international watercourses (IWC), which are regulated by more than the same number of treaties. The fact is that the practices of states are as different as the issues of each watercourse are unique, and require different and special arrangements. A few representative treaties will be evaluated, with an appraisal of the principles associated with these treaties. In the process of the resolution of disputes that emerged between states, judicial pronouncements by the PCIJ, the ICJ, federal courts and arbitral tribunals will also be discussed. In order to tackle the issues efficiently, a separate discussion and assessment of each segment of the sources of international law, as stipulated in article 38 of the ICJ Statute, i.e., state practice, judgements of courts, international customs and writings of reputed publicists, will be carried out.4

In the light of water as essential requirement for people, the difficulty of access to water and the problems associated with its scarcity, a very careful and prudent resolution of the issue is of the utmost need in order to maintain smooth relations between riparian states. As has been analysed, the issue by its complex nature requires a prudent and balanced resolution reconciling the diverse interests of contestant states.5

2.2 Sources of International Watercourses Law

2.2.1 Earliest Stage of Development of IWC

The quantum of water is the same as it was three billion years ago.6 At the same time, its uses have gone up to such a point that to keep a balance between demand and supply has become a formidable task. Furthermore, such waters have also become strategic resources for several states in order to attain the socio-economic and political aspirations of their people as well as the best tool for bargaining with other riparian states. The other reason, however, for the huge increase in the use of the waters is the rising prosperity in human lives along with the rapid population growth. This exacerbates the problem further, and the consequence is obvious, more stress on water supply.

As a result of misuse and overuse of water, the quantity available as well as the quality has been found to be decreasing in several parts of the world. Consequently, it has given birth to several conflicts. Earlier development in the area by the courts, tribunals, bilateral as well as multilateral conventions, customs, agreements, and writings of the publicists greatly inspired and influenced the resolution of most of the conflicts. Ultimately, on numerous occasions, disputes were resolved amicably and peacefully by accommodating divergent interests, but some of them remain unresolved.7 Resolution of the disputes was carried out in accordance with the concepts of co-operation and good neighbourly relations, based on equity, which were later largely followed by the other states in their bilateral relations and appreciated by the international community. Efforts will be concentrated on assessing and evaluating the far-reaching consequence of these achievements and their implications for the development of IWL.
As stated earlier, scientific innovation has enabled humans to undertake water diversion to far away places as exemplified in the western part of the United States, Australia, the then Soviet Union, Israel and several other parts of the world where grandiose diversion works have been undertaken.8 In the Middle-East (ME), a complex and huge project, 'the peace pipeline' has been proposed, which is supposed to deliver water from Turkey to all Middle-Eastern countries including Israel. Apart from this, in Libya, there is an ambitious plan for collecting and diverting water in a pipeline, also called a 'great man-made river', which stretches from deep aquifers, so called “fossil” water. This is intended to augment the seriously depleted groundwater supplies in the coastal region, by bringing water from the hundreds of desert wells at Tazirbu and Saria.9 Nevertheless, with such new developments and innovations, the formulation of particular rules that could address new circumstances and issues always remains a challenge to the international community.

The uneven availability, scarcity, misuse and overuse of the water, further confronted by the increasing demand of a rapidly increasing population will arguably make water the issue of the twenty-first century.10 It should not be misunderstood that the scarcity of fresh water only causes conflicts between sovereign independent states. Similar problems also exist within states, as inter-state water disputes within a federal structure. As a matter of fact, most of the legal development of this area has been enriched by the inter-state disputes resolution mechanisms in the United States, India and other federal states. The significance of these decisions is of far reaching consequence in the development and codification of IWL. These decisions can be considered as a foundation of the rule of equitable utilisation in the use of IWCs.11

2.2.2 The United States

The decisions of the US Supreme Court in water disputes between states have provided a rich body of jurisprudence in the area of equitable utilisation. (In inter-state disputes, the US Supreme Court has used the term ‘equitable apportionment’ whilst in international relations the US has used the term ‘equitable utilisation’. There is no fundamental difference between these terms). To analyse all these decisions is not possible. However, a quick survey of some representative decisions is essential. In the United States, each of the 50 states enacts its own water law. Most such laws hold the view that the water resources are the wealth of the state through which they flow. For the protection of their existing use, when such use conflicts with other states, each state tends to rely on its own law. The reasons are apparent. The western part of the USA is an arid or semi-arid area where water is scarce and demand is huge. As a result, there were, and still are, water disputes in which a lot of norms, concepts and ideas have been developed in resolving these issues. Intriguingly, as the disputes went to the Supreme Court, they were resolved by the application of federal as well as international law, considering the dispute as similar to the disputes between two sovereign nations. As will be seen in the forthcoming sub-topic, such decisions have played a significant role in the development of the area where the main thrust of the decisions has been ‘equitable apportionment'.

In the Kansas v. Colorado cases of 1902 & 1907, Kansas, the downstream and prior user, blamed Colorado for violating the fundamental principle of “use your own without destroying another’s legal right” in the Arkansas River.12 Colorado contested saying that because the river originates and flows in its territory, it has full authority to use its water without caring about the effects outside its border. The court in its judgement applied international law principles. The arguments of both states solely relying on their own respective water laws were refused. The court decided that 'equality of right and equity between two states forbids any interference with the present withdrawal of water in Colorado for the purpose of irrigation'.13 The reasons given for the decision were that the court wanted to ensure that justice was done to both states in the given situation. Basically, the judgement upheld the rule of equitable apportionment of the waters, refusing their reliance on 'prior use' and the 'Harmon Doctrine'. The Harmon Doctrine is based on the 1896 legal opinion of Attorney General Harmon to the Secretary of State in relation to water sharing issues with Mexico-US. Harmon stated that the US had full authority to the US over water that flows in its territory without regards to its effect on Mexico. The court regarded prior use as only one of the factors that had to be considered in determining whether or not a certain use is equitable and not the only determining factor. When the case again came to the court later in 1907, the court reinforced the rule of equitable apportionment, advocating that both states were entitled to an equitable share of the flow, and this was the best way to allocate their respective shares.14
In the 1921 case of Wyoming v. Colorado, the latter diverted water from the Laramie River within its territory, and the former sought to restrain the diversion on the ground that intra-basin transfer is illegal and would hamper its prior use.15 Colorado contended that it had full right to use its river water as it pleased, based on the Harmon Doctrine. Wyoming contested the legality of the diversion and maintained that its prior use must be respected. In a nutshell, the dispute was based on the principle of prior appropriation and territorial sovereignty. The Court, in its judgement, rejected the conflicting arguments of both states and provided that even though the constitutions of both states protect their respective prior uses, the basic rule in question was just and equitable utilisation. Therefore the court allocated the water to both states based on this principle. In the later case of 1940, where Wyoming alleged that the Colorado diversion works appropriated more than its share, the contention was refused by the Supreme Court stating that the diversion, unless it inflicted injury on the former, was lawful.16
In the New Jersey v. New York dispute of 1931, each state was claiming 'prior use' and 'use your wealth as you please' concepts. The former sought to restrain the diversion of the water of the Delaware River, whilst the latter argued that it had legal right to use its resource as it liked. The court held:
"both states have real and substantial interests and rights over the waters of a river that must be reconciled as best they can. The best way of achieving it is to secure equitable apportionment without quibbling over formulas."17
Moreover, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes provided that,
“a river is more than an amenity; it is a treasure. It offers a necessity of life that must be rationed among those who have power over it”.18
The essence of the adjudication was to reconcile the interests of both states within the parameter of equitable apportionment. Therefore, New York was allowed the diversion of a certain quantum of water with conditions, as the best way to accommodate the interest of each party.
In the Colorado v. New Mexico dispute of 1975 over the allocation of the river's waters, where the latter (downstream) was depriving the former of using the waters, the court maintained that the applicable rule in the dispute is equitable apportionment.19 That is to say, this conflict was also adjudged by the rule of equity, justice and fairness. The other more complicated, contentious and long running dispute was that of Arizona v. California, where in 1963 the Supreme Court held the view that 'equitable apportionment' is the major rule of adjudication of the issue in question.20 Beside this, there are several other judgements in the United States that have enunciated and applied the same principles of adjudication. As demonstrated earlier, these judgements greatly influenced many areas of the world in the resolution of inter state water conflicts or conflicts between sovereign nations, thereby integrating as customary certain norms for state practices including treaty regimes.
In Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 1931, the latter was permitted by the Secretary of War to divert and impound floodwater during the monsoon season, i.e., May to June. Connecticut challenged the permission on the ground that it would impair navigation, fish stock and farm land. Massachusetts denied their contention. The court found that the disputes between states over diversion of water from streams flowing through both territories must be settled on the basis of equality of right. That did not mean that there must be an equal division of waters, but meant that the principles of equal right and equity shall be applied, having regard to both interests.21 In the end, Connecticut’s practice was not found to be against the interests of Massachusetts but rather consistent with the principles. However, it is not my argument that these judgements should be treated as a precedent for all nations. They could rather be regarded as a catalyst and references for the resolution of water conflicts.22
Besides the Supreme Court, the involvement of the American Congress, Federal Government and the conclusion of Inter-State compacts have made possible the resolution of these disputes within the US. In all deliberations, reasonable and equitable apportionment of waters between the co-basin states was a norm that has been widely recognised and applied.23 With respect to diversion, as distinct from apportionment, slightly different reasoning was used. For example, Colorado was prohibited from diverting water in the future without court permission, even though, it had not been proved that at the time such diversion would cause injury.24 The development and enunciation of new principles in relation to sharing of waters and the benefit therefrom are highly innovative in the United States. McCaffrey advocated that the decisions of the courts of the United States were milestones in the development of IWL.25 These decisions contributions are twofold, in that they have had both national arrangement and international impact on the management with its upstream and downstream riparian relations. Each exercise (negotiation, court decision, etc) had produced a new example of co-operation. From the Harmon Doctrine we have moved to the principle of equitable apportionment and equitable utilisation.26

2.3 Water Disputes

2.3.1 Inter-State Water Disputes in India

In India, there are many inter-state disputes in relation to the sharing and allocation of the water of the rivers that flow along common boundaries. Most of the conflicts have been resolved through the decisions of the relevant Water Tribunal. However, some conflicts remain unresolved.27 Nevertheless, the resolutions of the disputes have been based on equitable apportionment and efficient use of the waters. It will be useful to consider a few leading cases.

In the Krishna River Water dispute, 196128 a commission was constituted following a failed intervention by the central government to resolve the conflict. The facts of the case were that even after the promulgation of a new constitution of India in 1950, the Krishna River Basin was divided among several states, due to the high demand of water amongst the contestants (Maharastra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa). As disputes emerged, eventually, the Krishna dispute tribunal was constituted and the disputes were referred to it. It must be acknowledged here that within Article 262 of the Indian Constitution and Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956,29 the authority for resolving water disputes between states lies in the central government and the judiciary is excluded from this jurisdiction:
"Under Clause X of the final order of the tribunal permitted the state of Maharastra to divert the water of Krishna River for use outside the Krishna River basin but imposed a limit beyond which Maharasta could not divert the said water within one water year”….The tribunal maintaining that a river is an indivisible physical unit further stressed that “the conflict of interests of the riparian states must be resolved by agreement, judicial decree, legislation or administrative control, so as to secure a fair and just distribution of the water resources among the concerned states."30
In brief, this decision calls for a co-ordinated, participatory and equal entitlement in the use of a common river to all riparian states.
The issue of diversion was dealt with in the Narmada River Water Dispute, 197831 in which four states, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharastrra and Gujarat were contestant parties. The Narmada Water Tribunal was constituted and the dispute referred to it. In its decision, the tribunal quoted the findings of the Indus Commission (the Rau Commission dealt with below) and Articles IV and V of the Helsinki Rules 1966, and held the view that equitable apportionment is the appropriate rule in adjudicating a dispute like this. It also observed that:

“the diversion of water of an inter-state river, outside the river basin is legal and the need for diversion of water to another watershed may, therefore, be a relevant factor on the question of equitable apportionment in the circumstances of a particular case. … the question of diversion of water of an inter-state river to areas outside the basin is not a question of law but is a question of fact to be determined in the circumstances of each particular case”.32

The ruling explicitly relied on the principles of equitable apportionment and directed the parties to establish an entity in order to implement the project and consent to intra-basin transfer of waters.
In the Godawari River Water Dispute, 1980,33 the disputant states were Maharastra, Andhra Pradesh (AP), Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa and the conflict was over sharing of water. With regard to the question of whether it was lawful for the state of AP to execute a project that was likely to submerge the territories of the other states, the tribunal held the view that 'it is to be observed that each case of possible submergence must be dealt with separately after consideration of a concrete project involving submergence and all relevant facts bearing on the question of such submergence. But it cannot be said generally that any project of the state of AP involving submergence of the territory of other states is permissible without the prior consent of the affected states.'34 However, the complex issues of adverse effect on other states were resolved through the judgement, based on reasonable and equitable use of inter-state waters. The tribunal held that while using one’s share, there should not be any harmful or adverse effect on other riparian states.
The Punjab- Rajasthan- Haryana Water Dispute (Eradi Tribunal on sharing of Ravi-Beas Waters) 1986, 35 is an Indian case which emerged after the conclusion of the Indus river treaty between India and Pakistan.36 After the bifurcation of Punjab into Punjab and Haryana, the dispute was settled by trilateral negotiations that led to the conclusion of an agreement between the chief ministers of the respective states and the central government’s representatives. After the change of political situation in Punjab, in which the Punjab legislative assembly repudiated this agreement, the Indian Prime Minister intervened and agreed to a fair allocation of waters to Punjab by constituting a tribunal to adjudicate the case. The principles to be taken into account by the tribunal’s decision were: “avoidance of unnecessary waste in the utilisation of waters, rejection of territorial sovereignty, and upholding the notion of equity and fairness.”37 In essence, the Punjab assertion based on ‘territorial sovereignty’ was rejected on the line that it is not an accepted principle in international law. Haryana’s share of water allocated by earlier treaties was upheld and the principle of equity and fairness in the allocation and sharing of shared watercourses was recognised.
An example of trade for water can be found in the Tungabhadra river waters sharing case38 between Madras and Mysore (Karnataka), 1944. An agreement was concluded, whereby it was agreed with Mysore that royalties shall be paid to Madras in lieu of the utilisation of its share of the waters of Kavery at Sivasamudram. This agreement shows how states can trade off benefits from a shared resource. In this case, the former paid reparation to the latter in lieu of its share of water.
The Musakhand Dam Project provides a good example of sharing of costs and benefits in a common interstate river project, by the two riparian states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.39 In this case, both states shared the cost in proportion to the benefits, for which a detailed calculation of the division of water and construction of canals and dams was devised. Apart from this, there was the Bajaj Sagar Dam project, in which the Gujarat and Rajasthan Governments made another cost sharing agreement in proportion to the benefits accruing from the project in 1966. This also provides for the rehabilitation of displaced persons from the areas submerged and settlement of the amount of compensation to be paid to Rajasthan by Gujarat in lieu of those submerged areas affected by the construction of Kadana Dam.40 In both cases, water projects were developed in such a way that each state shared the costs and benefits fairly, equitably and reasonably. Such an example provides the ground for the effective and efficient development of a shared resource for mutual benefit.
These inter-state resolutions within India could be regarded as good examples of how to resolve the existing problems on sharing and allocation of common waters between India and her other riparian states at the international level. The fact that India has already agreed to such arrangements should not be refused with respect to her neighbours. The genesis of these resolutions has been a co-operative approach, negotiation, exchange of data and statistics and a true realisation of how to share the costs as well as benefits proportionately with a ‘no harm’ concept. The reason for evaluating several Indian water disputes is that the research is explicitly linked with the issues of India’s neighbour, Nepal, i.e., the Indian case law could be helpful to sort out the outstanding issues in the region. Similar inter-province problems remain in Pakistan as well, in relation to the sharing of the Indus River water between Punjab and Sindh provinces. There are serious conflicts here, the former alleging the latter wastes its share and the latter blaming the former for stealing its share of water. This has resulted in political issues being led by water issues. Consequently, there is now an independence movement in Sind Province, assumed to stem from the water sharing issues.41 These decisions have inextricable linkages with the book in view of the fact that India is alleged to be using double standards while dealing with its upstream and downstream states.42 In conclusion, in all judgements, the principles of equitable apportionment, efficient utilization and co-operation between the watercourse states were enunciated. This has significantly contributed to the fair and equitable entitlement of a state’s entitlement to a shared water resource within India.
Many of the principles decided in the case law discussed above were foreshadowed by a commission established by the British government in 1941. As an early commission, which was constituted to resolve the inter-state dispute between the province of Sind and Punjab in the then British India under the Government of India Act 1935, some of the recommendations made by the commission were highly significant to the development of the area. However, it must be taken into consideration that these recommendations were never complied with by the disputant parties. The commission chaired by Justice B. N. Rau, known as the Rau commission, enunciated six principles for the resolution of the dispute, two of which are pertinent here. One of the principles is:
"the rights of the several provinces and states must be determined by applying the rules of 'equitable apportionment', each unit getting a fair share of the water of the common river." The second one is that “that equitable sharing once made, may cease to be equitable later, in the face of the new circumstances.” 43
This indicates that the changed circumstance, in which new perspectives emerge, may change a judgement made earlier, as a result of which the equitable matters may become inequitable in the changed circumstance. That is to say that the term 'equitable utilisation' varies in each circumstance and context, and may not be static and stable.
In practice, neither party ever recognised these principles. Subsequently, the case was forwarded to the Secretary of State in London. After independence and the subsequent partition of India and Pakistan on August 15, 1947, the issue again emerged as an international dispute, that was later resolved through the conclusion of the Indus Treaty, 1960 by the mediation of the World Bank, which is evaluated below. 44

2.3.2 Developments in European States

The principles of equitable utilisation have been enunciated in several European states in water disputes between the members of federal states on how to share the waters between them. The Supreme Court of Switzerland decided a case relating to water allocation and sharing between cantons in 1878. This predates the US Supreme Court decisions on similar water disputes in the United States. The Aargau v. Zurich case45 related to the Zwillikon Dam and is significant in terms of its weight and significance in IWL, as well as constituting a well-balanced decision addressing the interests of all cantons in the sharing of water (in an interstate water dispute). A private firm in the village of Zwillikon, in the canton of Zurich, constructed a dam on the Jonabach River to provide power for its factory. However, this company required deposits of a certain sum of money in a bank to be used to indemnify persons whose existing uses downstream might be effected by the new works. As a result of diversion, the mill owners further downstream in the canton of Aargau complained that the dam deprived them of sufficient flow of water to operate their facilities. The Swiss Supreme Court in its judgement held the view that where the interests of two cantons are in conflict, as in the present case, international law principles derived from the ‘law of good neighbourliness’ apply, in which each canton is entitled to the rational utilisation of the waters, corresponding to its needs, but only in so far as the joint use of the water is not thereby made impossible but is left for the rest of the cantons in the same manner. In other words, highlighting the significance of the judgement, Smith stated that:

“so long as the sovereign power of the state is exercised in a reasonable and beneficial manner, its exercise cannot be vetoed by the assertion of any absolute property right .. the decision 'essentially rests upon the principle of the "equitable apportionment of benefits’".46
In fact, it is the first decision in Europe in which the rule of equity was invoked to protect the interests of the disputant parties equally and equitably.
The diversion of the waters of the Leith River 1913, 47 involved an Austrian diversion inside Austria, depriving Hungary of its share, which it was already utilising. The Royal Imperial Administrative Court of Austria held the view that the diversion was against the rules of customary international law and eventually prohibited this unilateral diversion. The court found that states are under an obligation to respect an existing right in a watercourse beyond their frontiers. In the present case, for the people of downstream Hungary relying on the water, depriving them of their share was in itself an illegitimate act. In essence, the court upheld the rules of reasonable and equitable utilisation for water sharing by riparian states.
The Italian Court of Cassation, in the case of Societe Energie Electriquedu Littoral Mediterancen v. Compagnia Imprese Elettriche Liguri 1939, 48 affirmed the principle of a community of ownership of water with respect to shared resources. The main thrust of the case concerned the implementation of a French court decision in Italy, but at the same time, some rules of international water sharing were discussed:

“the international duty of the state not to impede or to destroy the opportunity of the other states to avail themselves of the flow of water for their own national needs”.49

Nonetheless, the basic rule of an IWC, as advocated in the judgement, is equality of right that must be utilised equally, fairly and equitably as not to inflict injury beyond the frontiers of that state.
A dispute relating to water sharing and allocation emerged between German provinces in Wurttemberg & Prussia v. the Baden, in which the Supreme Court Staatsgerichtshof rendered its judgement in 1927.50 The facts of the case itself are interesting, due to the unique natural phenomenon of the water of the Danube sinking into the aquifers, the seepage water reappearing in a separate drainage basin, (that of the Rhine River located in the state of Baden). In the Wurttemberg section of the Danube, all the water disappeared as a result of the natural sinking phenomenon, which made the case further complicated, dragging Wurttemberg into the controversy. Baden, on its part, requested an injunction restraining Wurttemberg from constructing and maintaining certain works that were allegedly intended to prevent the natural flow of the Danube waters to the Aach. At the same time, Prussia, downstream of Wurtttemberg, was also injured by the loss of water from the Danube and intervened in the suit on the side of Wurttemberg.51 In this context, Wurttemberg asked the court to grant an injunction restraining from constructing and maintaining certain works (Baden and Prussia), and to instruct Baden to remove the natural obstacles, which accumulate in the bed, and on the banks of the river in order to ensure an unimpeded flow of water.
The German Supreme Court held that Baden must refrain from causing an increase in the natural sinking of the waters of the Danube due to its artificial works and by the accumulation of sand and gravel in the bed of the river. And Wurrttemberg was required to refrain from decreasing the natural sinking of Danube waters due to certain works and artificial damming of avenues of sinking. The court also held that while sovereign states (or members of a federal state) are using waters of their territory, they must bear in mind that it should not cause any harm or injury to other states and the interest of each state must be weighed in an equitable manner against the interest of others. The case dealt with a unique natural phenomenon. It also held the view that the disputant provinces must respect the equitable and reasonable share of every province. McCaffrey has highlighted the significance of the case by saying:

"even for a case between two states of a federation, the Staatsgerichtshof’s analysis, and the principles it applied, are remarkably advanced from the period in which judgement was rendered. … the rules it applied are generally consonant with those contained in the 1997 UN Convention, especially those of equitable utilisation and the obligation to prevent significant harm."52

In fact, the German case is the earliest groundwater case which explicitly enunciated the principles of equitable utilisation, no harm rule and due diligence by applying the rules of international law as if it were a case between the two sovereign nations.53 The significance of procedural issues such as notification and cooperation are highly important and if these issues had been applied in this case, the dispute would probably not have arisen. In other words, without invoking these procedural issues the application of equitable utilisation in a shared watercourse is not viable. These norms were not practised by the disputant parties in this case. Procedural issues are further addressed in Chapter Three.
The above noted European cases were settled through the cardinal rule of reasonable and equitable apportionment. In other words, the decisions advocated the notions of good neighbourliness between riparian states, resolution of the issues by means of negotiation, agreement, co-operation, and notification. In each circumstance, equity played a central role to bridge the gap between the conflicting interests of the contestant parties. In this sense, it can be concluded that equity and equitable utilisation remain at the centre of the resolution of each conflict in the above state practices. Moreover, in most cases, irrespective of the fact that the disputes were domestic in nature, international law was applied to ensure that the interests of each state, province or canton were considered and justice was done.

Directory: bibliography -> articles -> general -> upreti
bibliography -> The bibliography of the principal books, mss., Etc. Quoted in the dictionary list of abbreviations, Etc. Used in the bibliography
bibliography -> A bibliography of Literary Theory, Criticism and Philology
bibliography -> A bibliography of Literary Theory, Criticism and Philology
bibliography -> Select bibliography
bibliography -> Draft: October 11, 2007. Forest Fuels Management and Biomass Utilization Bibliography: Knowledge Available for Management of North American Forest Fuels With Consideration of the Potential Uses of the Woody Biomass Generated by the Fuel Treatments Prepared
bibliography -> Guide to research. It could not be complete, but additions are welcome
bibliography -> Jewish Women’s Bibliography organized by Topic/Subject Historical Studies United States
bibliography -> You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake
bibliography -> Chinese art bibliography, 1980s and 1990s
upreti -> International Watercourses Law and Its Application in South Asia

Download 237 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6

The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2022
send message

    Main page