Archive for the ‘International Water Law’ Category

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision in First Ever Dispute Over Interstate Groundwater – Implications for International Law

Monday, December 13th, 2021

This essay is written by Gabriel Eckstein, Professor of Law at Texas A&M University, director of the TAMU Law Program in Energy, Environmental, and Natural Resources Systems, and director of the International Water Law Project. He can be reached at gabrieleckstein [at] law.tamu.edu. (This essay was republished in Global Water Forum, Dec. 21, 2021, available at https://bit.ly/3qcITgC).

On 22nd November 2021, in the case of Mississippi v. Tennessee, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its first ever decision in a dispute between two U.S. states over a transboundary aquifer.  The Justices’ decision was unanimous with the Court dismissing Mississippi’s case and holding that “the waters contained in the Middle Claiborne Aquifer are subject to equitable apportionment,” and that U.S. states may not “exercise exclusive ownership or control” over interstate waters flowing within their borders.  While the case involved an entirely domestic U.S. dispute, it is nonetheless an interstate dispute over cross-border groundwater resources. Thus, it could have a significant jurisprudential impact on the development of international law for transboundary groundwater resources.

Background

The Middle Claiborne Aquifer. From U.S. Geological Service.

The Middle Claiborne Aquifer (also known as the Memphis Sand Aquifer) is a relatively large groundwater-bearing formation that underlies eight states in the United States, including Mississippi and Tennessee.  Decades ago, Tennessee installed groundwater wells on its side of the border to supply the growing city of Memphis. More recently, Tennessee installed additional wells close to its border with Mississippi to supply Memphis and the surrounding communities.  Memphis, with a population of 1.15M people, is one of the largest cities in the United States that relies exclusively on groundwater for its municipal water supply utilizing around 160 wells.  In contrast, Mississippi has withdrawn comparatively very little groundwater from the aquifer on its side of the border.  Most of the extractions in Mississippi supply individual households and some agricultural activities.

In 2014, Mississippi sued Tennessee and the City of Memphis claiming that since 1985, Memphis had stolen 252 billion gallons (954 million m3) of Mississippi’s groundwater.  While Tennessee’s wells were drilled vertically and did not extend across the border, Mississippi asserted that the cones of depression of Tennessee’s wells crossed into Mississippi and diverted that state’s groundwater into Tennessee.  Mississippi also claimed that it had an ownership interest in that stolen groundwater and demanded compensation in the amount of USD $615 million.  In response, Tennessee asserted that transboundary groundwater resources in the United States should be subject to the same doctrine as transboundary surface waters, namely, the doctrine of equitable apportionment.  Hence, it asked the Court to dismiss Mississippi’s case since Mississippi had not filed a claim based on that doctrine.  Mississippi responded that equitable apportionment should not apply in its case because groundwater and surface waters have different properties and characteristics, and because Tennessee had already withdrawn 252B gallons of groundwater before there was a chance to divide it in a fair manner.

The Decision

In surprisingly quick action, less than two months following oral arguments, the Supreme Court issued its decision.  The Court outrightly rejected all of Mississippi’s exclusive ownership claims and ruled that “the waters contained in the Middle Claiborne Aquifer are subject to equitable apportionment.”

NW-SE hydrostratigraphic cross section beneath the city of Memphis and the adjacent states of Arkansas (AR) and Mississippi (MS). From Michael Campana, Mississippi v. Memphis: The Curious Case of the Memphis Sand Aquifer, in Transboundary Groundwater Resources: Sustainable Management and Conflict Resolution (Fried and Ganoulis, Eds. 2016, Lambert Academic Publishing).

In adjudicating the case, the Court acknowledged that the Court has “never considered whether equitable apportionment applies to interstate aquifers.” However, it quickly asserted that, for three reasons, equitable apportionment of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer would be “‘sufficiently similar’ to past applications of the doctrine to warrant the same treatment.”  First, it stated that while the Court had only applied equitable apportionment to transboundary resources, the “Middle Claiborne Aquifer’s ‘multistate character’ seems beyond dispute.”  Second, it explained that the aquifer “contains water that flows naturally between the States” and that its distinct characteristics, including the considerably slower movement of groundwater in comparison to surface flows, are irrelevant to the analysis.  Lastly, the Court said that where one state’s use of a transboundary resource affects the other state (here, Tennessee’s pumping of the groundwater affected the aquifer in Mississippi through the cone of depression, which extended underneath Mississippi), indeed, “[s]uch interstate effects are a hallmark of our equitable apportionment cases.”  Accordingly, the Court concluded that “the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment” applies to the waters of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer.

In addition, the Court thoroughly rejected Mississippi’s claim to sovereign ownership of the groundwater in the portion of the formation that was located within its borders.  The Court recognized that each state “has full jurisdiction over the lands within its borders, including the beds of streams and other waters.”  However, it asserted that “such jurisdiction does not confer unfettered ‘ownership or control’ of flowing interstate waters themselves.”

Implications for International Law

While nation’s domestic court decisions are not regarded as primary sources for international law, decisions from federal jurisdictions often have been influential in its development.  This is especially true in the advancement and evolution of international water law where the jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court in interstate water disputes has featured quite prominently.  Thus, it is likely that the recent decision could prove significant in two regards.

Equitable and reasonable utilization

Equitable and reasonable utilization is considered as one of the keystone principle of international water law.  However, as Professor Rhett Larson explains, its origin can be traced back largely to U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence and that Court’s doctrine of equitable apportionment.  For example, both equitable apportionment and equitable and reasonable utilization focus on the notion of equality of states under law, and both advocate equity in the allocation of benefits derived from transboundary waters.  Moreover, the factors established by the U.S. Supreme Court for determining equitable apportionment are very similar to those laid out in Article 6 of the Watercourses Convention for determining equitable utilization.  For example, while the U.S. doctrine considers “physical and climatic conditions” when evaluating the equities, international law ponders the “[g]eographic, hydrographic, hydrological, climatic, ecological and other factors of a natural character.”  Although there are also important differences between the two doctrines, it suffices to say that U.S. Supreme Court decisions in interstate U.S. water disputes have greatly influenced the development of the international law principle of equitable and reasonable utilization.

Application of that doctrine to international transboundary groundwater resources, however, is not entirely novel.  While far from being widely accepted, the concept, or something close to it, does appear in a few international instruments governing specific transboundary aquifers: the 2010 Guarani Aquifer Agreement ratified by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay; the 2013 Regional Strategic Action Programme for the Nubian Aquifer System adopted by Chad, Egypt, Libya, and Sudan; and the Memorandum of Understanding for the Establishment of a Consultation Mechanism for the Integrated Management of the Water Resources of the Iullemeden, Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer System, which has yet to come into force for the signatory states of Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Nigeria.

Understandably, three instruments employed for three different transboundary aquifers does not establish the existence of a customary international norm.  However, now that the U.S. high court has ruled that waters flowing through the aquifer underlying the Mississippi-Tennessee border are subject to equitable apportionment, other nations may be more inclined to explore the relevance of the comparable international law version of the doctrine—equitable and reasonable utilization—to groundwater resources shared with their neighbors.

Sovereignty

In the U.S. Supreme Court case, Mississippi argued that it had an absolute “ownership” right to all groundwater beneath its surface.  As a result, it sought USD $615 million in compensation from Tennessee for groundwater that the latter state caused to flow from underneath Mississippi and to Tennessee’s pumps.  In rejecting this claim, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that while each U.S. state has “full jurisdiction” over “the lands within its borders, including the beds of streams and other waters,” it may not “exercise exclusive ownership or control” of interstate waters flowing within its territory.  Otherwise, the Court asserted, it would allow an upstream (or up-aquifer) State “to completely cut off flow to a downstream one, a result contrary to our equitable apportionment jurisprudence.”  Thus, U.S. states may not claim sovereign ownership of the groundwater flowing beneath their territories.

Model of a transboundary aquifer. From S. Puri, G. Arnold Challenges to management of transboundary aquifers: The ISARM Programme: 2nd International Conference, Sustainable Management of transboundary waters in Europe, Miedzyzdroje, April 2002 (2002)

The Court’s decision is also noteworthy for the language it used.  In recognizing a state’s limited rights to the portion of cross-border land and resources located within its borders, and specifically to “the beds of streams and other waters,” the Court acknowledged only the right to “full jurisdiction,” but not to sovereignty.  This could be a critical distinction as “full jurisdiction” suggests a right to control or administer, but does not accord the full right of ownership that would ensue from sovereignty.  Moreover, by emphasizing “the beds of streams and other waters,” the Court seemed to focus on the container holding the water.  Thus, the Court’s decision could be interpreted as a right to control, regulate, and manage a portion of a transboundary aquifer—the matrix containing the groundwater—found within a country’s boundaries, but not an outright entitlement to claim ownership of that formation segment.  While the distinction may seem semantical, full jurisdiction could prove to be a more constrained right as compared to sovereignty in relation to other established interstate obligations, such as cooperation, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and equitable apportionment when arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the context of international law for transboundary groundwater resources, the notion of sovereignty has been controversial.  While sovereignty was excluded from the UN Watercourses Convention, it did find its way into Article 3 of the Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers (despite fervent objections—see here) where each aquifer state is accorded “sovereignty over the portion of a transboundary aquifer or aquifer system located within its territory.”  This formulation was justified by some on grounds that groundwater was akin to other natural resources (like oil, gas, and other minerals) that were subject to ownership claims articulated in the UNGA Resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962 on Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources; others argued that sovereignty necessarily applies to the stationary, groundwater-bearing, rock formation located within each country, albeit maybe not the groundwater itself.  To many water law experts, the provision was anathema to more recent understanding of international water law, especially in light of emerging principles of international environmental law.  Professor Stephen McCaffrey, one of the ILC Special Rapporteurs for what became the UN Watercourses Convention, asserted that “In this one provision, the ILC has managed to reverse over 100 years of development of international-watercourse law,” and suggested that the provision harkened back to the now discredited Harmon Doctrine.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Mississippi v. Tennessee marks a significant departure from the formulation found in the Draft Articles.  By asserting that a state may not seek to control exclusively interstate waters flowing within its territory, including groundwater, the Court mandated that interstate waters were common to all riparians and could be utilized and managed only with due regard given to the rights of other riparian states.  Potentially more significant, by focusing on the matrix containing the groundwater and using the “full jurisdiction” language, the Court may have signaled its disfavor of unrestrained sovereignty over groundwater-bearing formations that cross political boundaries, and its preference for cooperation and a collaborative approach to the management of transboundary aquifers.  In the international water law context, this equates with the notion of limited territorial sovereignty that now prevails for international watercourses, and possibly even the more progressive community of interest theory (see here).  Thus, the Court’s decision squarely sides with those who fought against inclusion of the sovereignty provision in the Draft Articles (see here).

Conclusion

Until now, there has never been a national judicial body (in the United States or elsewhere) that has considered a case between two political jurisdictions fighting over the right to use the waters of a transboundary aquifer.  As a result, the allocation of, rights to, and sovereignty in transboundary groundwaters and aquifers have been uncertain under both U.S. domestic law and international law.  While the case takes a great leap forward in clarifying the law within the United States, it may also prove to be influential in the international arena and serve as basis for the ongoing development of international law for transboundary groundwater resources.

Posted in International Water Law, Transboundary Aquifers, Tribunal Decision | 7 Comments »

AJIL Unbound Symposium on Interstate Disputes Over Water Rights

Tuesday, May 25th, 2021

This essay is written by Gabriel Eckstein, Professor of Law at Texas A&M University, director of the TAMU Law Program in Energy, Environmental, and Natural Resources Systems, and director of the International Water Law Project. He can be reached at gabrieleckstein [at] law.tamu.edu.

Disagreements over the management and allocation of transboundary freshwater resources have become increasingly prominent in international relations. Serious diplomatic tensions surround management of the Jordan, Mekong, Nile, Rio Grande, Silala, Syr Darya and Amu Darya, and Tigris and Euphrates rivers, to name just the most prominent examples among the world’s more than 300 shared watercourses. Nor is there any reason to think tensions will subside in the future.

In many parts of the world, demand for freshwater already exceeds accessible supplies (here). Water use globally has more than tripled since the 1950s, growing at more than double the rate of population growth over the same time period (here). Over the next thirty years, global demand is expected to increase by another 20 to 30 percent (here). These basic realities heighten the potential for disagreements and conflicts between riparian states.

Such disputes can escalate into larger regional conflicts. In the Aral Sea Basin, the discord between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan over the Rogun Dam has raised concerns over broader regional destabilization and even inter-state violence. Disagreement over the Xayaburi Hydropower Project (XHP) on the Mekong River, albeit contested with less rhetoric than the Rogun confrontation, has made many observers fear for the stability and the economic development of mainland Southeast Asia. And recent confrontations between Afghanistan and Iran have led to the outbreak of local violence and occasionally strained relations between the two states in an already fragile region. 

Despite mounting tensions among states, armed conflicts over transboundary freshwater have remained relatively limited to date. Yet growing water needs and dwindling supplies, climate change, shifting developmental and environmental priorities, and other concerns are straining cross-border hydro relations. Whether disagreements over shared freshwater resources will continue to be resolved peacefully will depend, in part, on the viability, durability, and flexibility of international law to prevent and resolve such disputes.

AJIL Unbound by Symposium, a publication of the American Society for International Law, recently commissioned a series of articles on Interstate Disputes Over Water Rights. The articles examine the role and relevance of international water law (IWL) for peacefully resolving disputes over transboundary freshwater resources. Taken together, the series provides an impressive breadth of approaches, from close examination of contemporary disputes over transboundary freshwater resources to the interpretation and application of specific IWL norms and principles. The series also features the perspectives of scholars from Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America.

The compilation, which is entirely open access, includes:

The diverse articles in this Symposium illustrate that the international law applicable to transboundary freshwater resources is at once expansive and focused.  While covering a broad array of topics and scenarios, from negotiation and data sharing to norm creation and litigation, it is also quite narrowly tailored to address the singular resource of freshwater in specific settings.  As developed as the regime may be, the essays make clear that it must continue to evolve and react to changing circumstances, such as climatic variability, growing demand, and increased knowledge about freshwater resources.

Water is one of the few true essential requirements for life. Thus, it is no surprise that disagreements among nations over this precious resource will continue and likely grow in the coming years.  Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that water management has more often been a source of cooperation than of conflict (here).  And while conflicts have certainly occurred, the vast majority of disputes have been resolved peaceably and in accordance with international law treaties and norms. Despite many challenges, international water law remains a vital and often effective guide for nations as they seek to resolve difficult and important water allocation disputes.

Posted in International Water Law, New Resources & Information, Water Conflicts | Comments Off on AJIL Unbound Symposium on Interstate Disputes Over Water Rights

Sink or Swim: Alternatives for Unlocking the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Dispute

Monday, March 22nd, 2021

The following essay by Mahemud Tekuya is a summary of his recently published article (under the same title) in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. Mr. Mahemud is a Ph.D./JSD candidate in International Law and Legal Studies at McGeorge School of Law under the supervision of Professor Stephen McCaffrey. He can be reached at mahmudeshetu@gmail.com.

For the past five years, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt have negotiated the filling and annual operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (“GERD”), but failed to strike a deal acceptable to them all.   In August 2019, Egypt submitted proposals on the filling and operation of the dam and later effectively internationalized the GERD negotiations by involving the United States government and the World Bank as observers. The three states then held meetings with the United States Department of Treasury and the World Bank’s representatives in both Africa and Washington, D.C.

The Washington talks, which at first were progressing well, took a turn for the worse in January, resulting in a stalemate. The United States, evidently going beyond its status as an observer in the talks, proposed an agreement that Ethiopia considered adverse to its national interest. Ethiopia rejected the proposal and withdrew from the final meeting.  The U.S. Department of the Treasury requested that Ethiopia sign the proposed agreement and cautioned Ethiopia to refrain from testing and filling the GERD without an agreement with Egypt and Sudan.  Ethiopia expressed its disappointment with the statement and announced that it would proceed with filling the reservoir in parallel with the construction of the dam as agreed to in the Declaration of Principles (DoP) that the parties signed in March 2015.  Egypt, on the other hand, signed the United States proposal and vowed to protect its interests in the Nile River “by all available means.”

The Nile River Basin. Source: Nile Basin Initiative

Although disguised in talks over the GERD’s filling and operation, the current tension between Ethiopia and Egypt is principally related to their longstanding disagreement over the validity of the 1902 Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty, the 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, and the 1959 Nile Treaty between Egypt and Sudan (collectively, the “colonial Nile Waters Treaties”). This disagreement—which reached an apex during the negotiations of the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA)—is adversely adversely impacting the GERD negotiations.

This article analyzes the implications of the colonial Nile Waters Treaties for the ongoing GERD dispute between Ethiopia and Egypt.  The negotiations over the filling and operation of the GERD are the focus of a voluminous body of academic literature.  Political scientists have extensively studied the hydro-hegemonic implications of the GERD in their effort to determine “who gets how much [of the Nile] water, when, where, and why?”  Other scholars have addressed whether the GERD will be a source of conflict or a catalyst for cooperation. Engineers and hydrologic experts studied the GERD’s positive and adverse effects and proposed various scenarios for the filling and operation of the dam.  Legal scholars have explored some of the substantive issues concerning the legal developments in the GERD dispute, including the DoP.  What the academic discourse regarding the GERD lacks, however, is a detailed study analyzing the ramifications of the colonial Nile Waters Treaties on the GERD negotiations, the legitimacy of the United States’ role in the GERD negotiations, the U.S. Treasury statement vis-à-vis international law, and solutions for resolving the GERD dispute.

This article intends to fill these gaps in the scholastic discourse on the GERD negotiations. The first part of the article briefly introduces the disputes over the colonial Nile Water Treaties as well as the context for the fragmented legal regime that currently governs the Nile Basin.  It also addresses the interplay between the colonial Nile Waters Treaties and the DoP and submits that the latter does not abrogate the former.  Part II analyzes the implications of the Nile Water Treaties for the post-DoP talks on the filling and operation of the GERD.  It discusses the justifications for the involvement of the United States and the World Bank, and explores recent sticking points in the GERD talks. Part III examines whether—as the U.S. Treasury has suggested—a preliminary agreement is required to fill and test the GERD.  It further probes the legitimacy under international law of the United States’ involvement in the GERD. Part IV explores alternatives for resolving the GERD dispute, such as negotiation, mediation, and judicial settlement.  Finally, the article offers its concluding remarks and a call for Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan to, inter alia, stop approaching the Nile watercourse as a zero-sum game and cooperate for their mutual benefit.

The full article can be accessed here.

Posted in Africa, International Water Law, Middle East, New Resources & Information, Transboundary Rivers, Water Conflicts | Comments Off on Sink or Swim: Alternatives for Unlocking the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Dispute

New Book on “International Law and Transboundary Aquifers” by Francesco Sindico

Monday, February 15th, 2021

The following essay is by Dr. Francesco Sindico, Co-Director of the Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance (SCELG). Dr. Sindico can be reached at francesco.sindico [at] strath.ac.uk.

How many times does an academic write a book and then only other academics read it? How useful are such books? This is something that has troubled me throughout my entire career in academia and has haunted me in the preparation of my first book as sole author. How do I write something that will be of interest to people within my area of expertise – international law – but also to those working in different fields relevant for the topic of my book – hydrogeologists, engineers, etc…? Even more importantly, how do I write a book that goes beyond the walls of academia and entice a non-academic readership – policymakers and water professionals?

Dr. Francesco Sindico

The book “International Law and Transboundary Aquifers” takes on this multiple challenge by framing the narrative around a practical scenario. One where two countries acknowledge the existence of a transboundary aquifer that straddles both their borders, and where both nations decide that they wish to manage it together and explore whether there are any rules that they can rely upon to base their cooperation on. It is a book that builds on a twofold premise that is not always present in real life. First, there is a common scientific understanding that the two countries indeed share an aquifer. Second, there is political will on both sides of the border to develop a joint normative framework to govern the aquifer. Chapter 1 provides the reader with an introduction to the book and details the contours of the practical scenario that will be present throughout. You can access the introduction free of charge via the publisher’s website.

Once the scenario is laid out, the book takes the reader through a journey that seeks to answer two key questions. The first one is what are the rules, if any, that two countries willing to manage a transboundary aquifer can consider? The answer to this first question is spelled out throughout chapters 3 and 4, which highlight the emergence of an international law of transboundary aquifers and discuss its normative content. The reader will discover how such rules do exist and can be found in a plethora of existing international legal instruments. These include both substantive and procedural obligations and, while most can be found in the United Nations International Law Commission Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers, the legal mosaic is much more complex and includes the United Nations Watercourses Convention, the UN Economic Commission for Europe Water Convention and its Model Provisions on Transboundary Groundwaters. The second question present in the book is one that the two countries in the practical scenario are deemed to ask themselves once they figure out what rules are present. Are such rules just guidance, or do they “have” to follow them? In other words, is the content of the international law of transboundary aquifers, as spelled out in chapters 3 and 4, legally binding? Is it mere guidance that countries can follow if they so wish and can adapt to their own context and interests? Or does it amount to legally binding obligations that countries are obliged to comply leading to legal consequences in case of breach? Chapter 5 and 6 present an answer to this question by engaging in a discussion about the future of the international law of transboundary aquifers (chapter 5) and introducing the reader to the still relatively small number of transboundary aquifer specific agreements and arrangements (chapter 6). Chapter 5 is where the book embarks in its most difficult challenge: to explain and clarify to a wide range of readers (not just those versed in international law) in practical terms the relevance of defining an international legal obligation as customary international law. Since the latter requires a detailed analysis of state practice, chapter 6 takes the reader through a journey around the world to “see” the various transboundary aquifer agreements and arrangements to consider how they contribute to the crystallisation (or not) of customary international law in the field of international law of transboundary aquifers.

The book does not provide all the answers to policymakers interested in pursuing transboundary aquifer cooperation with their neighbours. However, it does provide a basis upon which discussions can begin and cooperation can be developed. It is my hope that this book can serve such a purpose. For this to happen it is important that the two premises underpinning the practical scenario presented in the book are met: knowledge about the aquifer in the first place, and political will to cooperate. Other books and other means will be useful to overcome these two complex hurdles. However, once they are overcome, then I hope policymakers and transboundary water managers will be interested in picking up my book as a means to clarify, to them and to their counterparts, the normative landscape that lies ahead. If even just one country that shares one of the 592 transboundary aquifers (and groundwater bodies) present in the world achieves some more clarity about the complex landscape ahead, I will feel that my book will have been a worthwhile effort beyond the sometimes too high walls of academia.

A virtual book launch with the author and other eminent speakers is scheduled on Wednesday 24 Match from 2 to 3 PM GMT.

The book can be accessed here.

Posted in International Water Law, New Resources & Information, Transboundary Aquifers | 2 Comments »

The Ilisu Dam and its Impact on the Mesopotamian Marshes of Iraq: Implications for the Future Directions of International Water Law

Wednesday, January 27th, 2021

The following essay by Raquella Thaman is a summary of her recently published monograph (under the same title), which appears in Brill Research Perspectives in International Water Law.  Ms. Thaman is an attorney and teacher in California. She can be reached at r_thaman @ u.pacific.edu.

The fate of the Mesopotamian Marshes of Iraq provides us with a case study on the functional deficits of the existing body of international water law in managing conflict over transboundary watercourses. This monograph argues that international collaboration over transboundary watercourses is imperative for maintaining peace and stability and should force us into thinking of new ways to address these newly emerging and growing challenges in the field.

Water is a transient and finite resource. Moving through the hydrologic cycle, each molecule may find its way from a transboundary watercourse on one continent to a municipal water supply on another, and then back again. It is often said that every drop we drink has already been consumed by one life form or another.

The Hydrologic or Water Cycle.
Source: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

One of the more perilous side effects of climate change is its threat to the water supply of hundreds of millions of people. In many regions the seasonal absence of rain has historically been compensated for by meltwater from glaciers and winter snowpack across international borders in distant mountain ranges. When these glaciers disappear, so will the water supply during the dry season.

As these pressures increase, the need for effective legal regimes to address the sharing of transboundary watercourses likewise increases. In some cases, the existing law governing the utilization of this ephemeral resource has proven inadequate to prevent conflict and ensure access to water and its benefits for people and ecosystems no matter where they lie along the length of the watercourse.

The history and ecology of the Tigris-Euphrates Basin, and the issues surrounding Turkey’s recent impoundment of water behind the Ilisu Dam on the Tigris, provide an example highlighting such challenges. While the need for collaborative approaches to sharing transboundary watercourses is evident, barriers to such collaboration are complex and sometimes deeply entrenched. Additionally, the responsibility of the international community for helping at risk communities maintain access to adequate water supplies cannot be overlooked.

The first few chapters of the monograph set forth the context of the problem. Chapter one briefly introduces the hydrologic cycle and current state of Earth’s ecological systems underlying the need for new developments in international water law. The second chapter is an overview of the Tigris-Euphrates river basin including its hydro-geography, climate and early history of water use. The third chapter describes the significance of the Mesopotamian Marshes themselves as a harbinger for the well-being of the people of Iraq. The fourth chapter examines the water projects that affect the Tigris-Euphrates Basin including controversy surrounding Turkey’s most recent filling of the Ilisu dam and the flooding of Hasankeyf.

Map of Iraq with the Tigris and Euphrates River Basins.
Source: Library of Congress

Chapter five of the monograph outlines the law governing the Tigris-Euphrates Basin. The stance of the Tigris-Euphrates Basin states and their seeming embrace of outdated and conflicting approaches to resource allocation are examined.  Existing agreements between the states, both colonial era and post-WWII, and the application of the UN Watercourses Convention are then examined. Finally, other approaches to managing conflict over ecological conditions are examined including a brief analysis of the Rhine Salt Case and the human right to water recognized by the UN General Assembly in 2010.

Chapter six discusses the topic of collaborative water management using the illustrative example of the Senegal River Basin. Three examples of conflict over transboundary watercourses, one historical and two current, are then provided in order to illuminate some of the barriers to collaboration. The first is a nineteenth century dispute between the United States and Mexico over the water of the Rio Grande, which resulted in the production of the Harmon Doctrine. The second provides an example of upstream hydro-hegemony in an overview of the problems arising from China’s development of the upper Mekong River and its impact on those living in the lower Mekong Basin. The third example outlines the problem of downstream hydro-hegemony in the dispute between Ethiopia and Egypt, its downstream neighbor on the Nile, over the building of Ethiopia’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

In conclusion, the need for concerted global intervention to maintain the livability of Earth and increase resilience in the face of the rapidly changing availability of resources will be explored and the clear need for a unified collaborative approach to such intervention reiterated.

The monograph is dedicated to Ms. Fadia Daibes Murad (1966-2009); in recognition of the courage, rigor, and dynamic intellect with which she advocated both for fairness in access to water resources and for gender equity in Palestine and the Middle East.

You can access the monograph here.

Posted in Asia, Brill Research Perspectives – International Water Law, International Water Law, Middle East, Transboundary Rivers | Comments Off on The Ilisu Dam and its Impact on the Mesopotamian Marshes of Iraq: Implications for the Future Directions of International Water Law

The principle of prior notification – An instrument of implementing international water law and ensuring cooperative water diplomacy

Monday, November 23rd, 2020

The following essay by Dr. Susanne Schmeier, Associate Professor at IHE Delft, summarizes her recent article entitled “Prior notification of planned measures: A response to the no-harm dilemma?“, which appeared in the journal International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. Dr. Schmeier can be reached at s.schmeier [at] un-ihe.org.

Disagreements over whether a certain infrastructure scheme planned by one riparian country would have negative impacts on or even substantially harm another riparian state have occurred in numerous basins around the world. Examples include: the dispute between Mekong riparian states over Laos’ mainstream hydropower dams; the conflict between Ethiopia and Egypt over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Nile River and its potential implications for Egypt’s water security; the disagreement between India and Pakistan over a dam on the Kishenganga River, a tributary to the Indus; and the conflict between Tajikistan and downstream Uzbekistan over the Rogun Dam on the Vakhsh River, a tributary of the Amu Darya.

Construction site of the Xayaburi Dam on the Lower Mekong River in 2013. Photo courtesy of Susanne Schmeier.

The current surge in water infrastructure development – at least partly also driven by attempts to reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to produce clean energy in line with the commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement – combined with increasing pressure of global climate change on water resources are likely to make such disagreements ever more common in the future. In some cases, such disagreements can grow into full-fledged conflicts, with negative repercussions on riparian states’ political and economic relations as well as regional stability as a whole.

The two key substantive principles of international water law – the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization and the principle of no significant harm – aim to guide such developments in shared basins in a way that prevents conflict and ensures sustainable development. Their translation from abstract international law principles, even if codified in specific instruments – such as the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention or the 1992 Helsinki Convention – into tangible mechanisms that riparian states implement and comply with has, however, been challenging.

This is where the procedural principle of prior notification (and often also consultation or even prior agreement) comes in. It aims at facilitating the process of implementing substantive international water law principles by providing guidance on how to do so in specific situations in which one riparian state aims to pursue a certain water infrastructure scheme that might potentially affect others. It does so by providing guidance to (potentially disagreeing) states on how to engage in pre-defined structure and cooperative exchange and negotiations over whether a project planned by one riparian state would indeed cause harm to another state, and whether that harm would be beyond the significance threshold and/or be in violation of the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization. This also helps keeping disagreements between the riparians contained, and allows for addressing disputes in a clearly defined manner, preventing escalation.

The principle of prior notification is thus not only an important principle of international water law that helps implement the two key substantive principles of the international water law framework, but also an important instrument of water diplomacy that contributes to the cooperative management of shared water resources. This is the key argument of this article, which was published as part of an entire Special Issue focusing on the current state of the principle of no significant harm in international water law.

The principle of prior notification has been enshrined in a number of basin-specific treaties, some of which pre-date global instruments that codified key principles of international water law. These include the 1964 Convention and Statutes relating to the Development of the Lake Chad Basin, the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay, 1995 Mekong Agreement, the 2002 Framework Agreement for the Sava River Basin, and the 2003 Protocol on the Sustainable Development of the Lake Victoria Basin.

Dam near the city of Shiraz, Iran on the Rudkhaneye Khoshk (The Dry River). Photo courtesy of Susanne Schmeier.

Inspired by global and regional legal and political development, in recent years additional instruments have included the principle of prior notification in basin-specific arrangements. In Southern Africa, the 2000 Revised SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses requires riparian states to shared watercourses in the region to implement the principle of prior notification. Accordingly, either basin treaties in the region have included the principle in their texts, or river basin organizations (RBOs) have developed subsequent instruments to ensure its implementation. In the Zambezi River Basin, for instance, Art. 16 of the 2004 Zambezi Agreement requires parties to notify other riparians of “any program, project or activity with regard to the Zambezi watercourse or which may adversely affect the watercourse or any other member state”. Shiraz iran river

In order to implement these commitments, the Zambezi Watercourse Commission developed Procedures for the Notification of Planned Measures. Likewise, the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission developed Guidelines for Notification, Consultation and Negotiation despite the absence of any reference to prior notification (or any other substantive or procedural principle of international water law) in the 1994 Okavango Agreement. In other basins, such as the Congo, the Mekong and the Nile river basins, riparian states – often with the help of their basin organizations – have also developed subsequent legal or political documents that further specify notification processes (although not all have been adopted by riparian states or entered into force yet). 

Prior notification does not come without challenges. Often reflecting underlying disagreements between a project planning and potentially affected states, various issues of discontent have arisen in basins that have undergone prior notification processes in the past. These relate, first and foremost, to the question: which projects require prior notification? There tends to be different views, especially by the project planning state and potentially affected states, on which projects fall under notification requirements, sometimes becoming a source of disagreement itself. Other questions relate to issues of timing (when to notify), the information to be provided to other riparian states and/or the basin organization, the process for doing so and for determining whether a project is likely to lead to significant harm, and whether or not the project should be pursued.

However, when implemented in shared basins, in the case of specific and often contested infrastructure development plans, the principle has proven to be of considerable value in supporting substantive water law principles. It has also served to contain disagreements among riparian states and encourage cooperation and exchange of perspectives. Thus, beyond its value in international water law – where exact interpretation and implementation remains contested in various basins – the principle of prior notification has undeniably fulfilled an even more important function: it provides riparian states in a shared basin with a mechanism for addressing disagreement over some of the most conflictual matters of sharing transboundary basins and, thus, for dispute prevention and mitigation that align water law with water diplomacy aims and approaches.

You can access the article here.

Posted in International Water Law, UN Watercourses Convention | Comments Off on The principle of prior notification – An instrument of implementing international water law and ensuring cooperative water diplomacy

Implementing International Watercourses Law through the WEF Nexus and SDGs: an Integrated Approach Illustrated in the Zambezi River Basin

Monday, September 28th, 2020

The following essay by Dr. Zeray Yihdego and Julie Gibson is a summary of their recently published monograph (under the same title), which appears in Vol. 5(3) 2020, pp. 3-90 of Brill Research Perspectives in International Water Law.  Dr. Yihdego is Professor and Chair of Public International Law at the School of Law, University of Aberdeen. He can be reached at zeray.yihdego@abdn.ac.uk. Ms. Gibson is a Doctoral Researcher with the Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance, Strathclyde School of Law. She can be reached at julie.gibson@abdn.ac.uk.

Over the past few decades, in an attempt to balance the competing uses and trade-offs on international watercourses, a number of water resources management paradigms have been developed. From Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and water security to nature-based solutions and the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus, each framework has applied a new lens through which to view the governance of transboundary resources. These frameworks have undoubtedly proved useful, each approaching water governance from a different perspective allowing both synergies and gaps across multiple sectors and uses.  However, in many cases, each of these frameworks function within their own body of research and fail to identify overlaps and duplication of efforts. And each one attempts to ‘reinvent the wheel’ rather than focussing on long-term solutions and taking a holistic perspective of the frameworks already in existence.

Existing largely separated from these policy sphere frameworks is International Watercourses Law (IWL). IWL provides a number of key principles including equitable and reasonable use and the duty to prevent significant harm, which have become the foundation of many water governance regimes. Yet, in many ways, IWL provides only a broad framework for States to follow and is not sufficient to systematically consider the trade-offs of water use across multiple sectors such as energy and food.

Both areas – of policy and of law – bring clear benefits. Policy frameworks often provide more ambitious targets, which may be more tangible than IWL, as can be seen within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They may also be more industry/business focused, as is the case with the WEF nexus and can look for more scientific solutions to transboundary water governance. In this sense, policy frameworks can, therefore, fill some of the gaps which exist within the body of IWL. But the use of certain policy frameworks may be fleeting. Development agendas expire and notions of water security or nature-based solutions fall in and out of fashion. Thus, by linking to IWL, the temporal scope of these agendas can also be lengthened, underpinned by a legal framework, thereby demonstrates only one of the benefits of integration.

This monograph tests this theory of integration by viewing IWL, the WEF Nexus and the Sustainable Development Goals in an integrated manner termed the Law, Nexus Goals (LNG) approach. It explores the extent to which the WEF Nexus and the SDGs can support a progressive, realistic and balanced interpretation of the core principles of IWL and the cardinal rule of equitable and reasonable use in particular. Specifically, it asks and demonstrates how the SDGs and WEF Nexus could be mutually supportive in tackling the tension between competing uses and trade-offs between sectors.

This LNG approach is applied to the case study of the Zambezi River Basin, an extremely complex and fast-developing watercourse with a strong history of cooperation. Our findings demonstrate that even where sound IWL frameworks and cooperative processes exist, this does not guarantee a focused, measurable and sustainable outcome that is capable of addressing tensions among riparian and competing water uses in all cases. A more integrated and holistic framework could go some way to developing a more comprehensive and progressive water governance approach within transboundary river basins.

Zambezi River (courtesy of Sean Peter)

The monograph presents a perspective of integrated governance, bridging both law and policy. It illustrates the complexities of managing shared water resources that are subject to multiple uses – as illustrated through the Zambezi – and demonstrates how making the most of existing frameworks, rather than forming new ones, could be a positive driver for strengthened IWL implementation.

The monograph is derived from research conducted under the €5.5M four-year EU Horizon 2020 funded DAFNE project, which concerns the promotion of integrated and adaptive water resources management. The project explicitly addresses the WEF Nexus and aims to promote a sustainable economy in regions where new infrastructure and expanding agriculture has to be balanced with social, economic and environmental needs. The project takes a multi- and interdisciplinary approach to the formation of a decision analytical framework for participatory and integrated planning to allow the evaluation of decisions based on social, economic and environmental needs, thereby reflecting sustainable development. The monograph, therefore, derives its perspectives from the interdisciplinarity within the project.

You can access the monograph here.

Posted in Africa, Brill Research Perspectives – International Water Law, International Water Law | Comments Off on Implementing International Watercourses Law through the WEF Nexus and SDGs: an Integrated Approach Illustrated in the Zambezi River Basin

Swimming Against the Current: Revisiting the Principles of International Water Law in the Resolution of Fresh Water Disputes

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2020

The following essay by Tamar Meshel, of the University of Alberta Faculty of Law, summarizes her recently published article in the Harvard International Law Journal under the same title. She can be reached at meshel [@] ualberta.ca.

Dr. Tamar Meshel

There are currently two dominant views in the international water law (IWL) literature on the relationship between the customary international law principles of ‘equitable and reasonable utilization’ (ERU) and ‘no significant harm’ (NSH). The first view considers ERU to be the guiding principle of IWL and subordinates NSH to it, while the second view posits that the two principles are equal, and neither prevails over the other. Both views may be fit for purpose in the daily management of interstate fresh water resources and the prevention of disputes. In the context of resolving ever-increasing transboundary fresh water disputes (TFDs), however, the practical application of the two principles remains unclear, casting doubt on their ability to effectively guide states. This is evident, for instance, in the ongoing dispute between Ethiopia and Egypt concerning the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. While Ethiopia claims an equitable and reasonable right to build the dam, Egypt maintains its historic right to be free from significant harm that it claims the dam will cause it. The unclear relationship between the two principles thus enables states to cling to contradictory interpretations that suit their unilateral interests, thereby aggravating the dispute rather than resolving it.

In my article, I explore the potential for NSH to operate as the guiding principle of IWL and promote the resolution of TFDs. The strengths and weaknesses of ERU, as well as the historical evolution of both ERU and NSH, have been discussed in detail elsewhere. The article therefore largely takes the status quo described above as its starting point, and focuses on how the role that the two principles have played in the resolution of TFDs could be strengthened. Its contribution is not in arguing that ERU is an irrelevant principle to TFD resolution. Rather, while ERU remains the end goal of such resolution, the article posits that, both conceptually and practically, the means to this end is the NSH principle.  

The article discusses two qualities of NSH that make it an appropriate guiding principle in the resolution of TFDs: First, its due diligence standard of conduct and second, its ability to balance states’ competing interests.

The due diligence standard of the NSH principle guides states on how to prevent or minimize the risk of significant harm. This standard can facilitate the resolution of TFDs since it does not simply impose an “amorphous negative duty” to avoid harm, but rather a “positive duty to take concrete steps” to prevent harm. It therefore makes such harm not only more easily attributable to a particular state, but also less likely to occur if diligence is exercised. The due diligence nature of NSH also clarifies that this principle does not constitute a rigid blanket prohibition of all harm, but rather a more flexible rule that enables states to prevent significant harm by requiring them to observe a basic and uniform standard of conduct.

River Nile route.
Wikipedia https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:River_Nile_route.jpg

In addition, the NSH principle can be used to objectively evaluate states’ competing water uses by way of a balance-of-harms analysis. This analysis weighs the overall detrimental effects of a particular water use against its overall benefits—or, in other words, the harm caused by prohibiting it. It achieves a balanced outcome by focusing on the relevant states’ mutual goal of avoiding the greater harm to each other, the environment, and the shared fresh water resource. The question guiding this analysis, moreover, is not whether a particular use is “equitable and reasonable” and should therefore be allowed regardless of the resulting harm, but rather what is the greater harm to be avoided—that caused by the particular use or that resulting from the loss of its benefits. This ensures that even where “equities presumptively [support] protection” of a particular use, “the balance of benefit and harm” is maintained.

The due diligence nature of NSH and its balance-of-harms analysis also operate to reduce the incredibly high transaction costs involved in the resolution of TFDs. Due diligence obligations contribute to the reduction of these transaction costs since they equip states with the common goal of preventing the greater harm, as well as with the tools to achieve it. The balance-of-harms exercise provides states with reciprocal protection as well as an objective yardstick with which they can evaluate each other’s behavior. NSH can therefore serve to reduce transaction costs arising from contradictory positions and the absence of a unifying, objectively assessable, guiding principle.

The article also evaluates the use of NSH and ERU in the resolution of TFDs in practice by analyzing six such disputes submitted to arbitration and judicial settlement. This analysis reveals that where only the ERU principle was applied by the court or arbitral tribunal, namely in the Danube River decision, the dispute was not successfully resolved. The absence of both principles in the Meuse River decision also did not lead to a successful resolution. In contrast, in the four disputes that were successfully resolved—Lake Lanoux, Indus River, San Juan River, and Uruguay River—the NSH principle was applied either alone (in the first three cases) or together with the ERU principle (in the latter case). This analysis is not intended to prove that the use of the NSH principle necessarily leads to the successful resolution of all TFDs, as such resolution ultimately depends on states’ political will and good faith. Nevertheless, it lends some empirical support to the conceptual proposition that NSH is well suited to guide states toward successful resolution.

In their current state, the ERU and NSH principles fail to provide effective guidance to states faced with TFDs. At the same time, these disputes are likely to continue arising around the world, making effective international rules even more imperative. This article suggests an alternative to the prevailing views of IWL, which treats the NSH principle as its guiding principle for the purpose of TFD resolution. This approach builds on NSH’s due diligence standard, and proposes a balance-of-harms analysis to assist states such as Egypt and Ethiopia in weighing their competing interests and minimizing or preventing the most significant harm. Using NSH in this way promises to achieve both harm prevention and equitable and reasonable use––the dual goals of IWL.

The full article can be accessed here.

Posted in Africa, International Water Law | Comments Off on Swimming Against the Current: Revisiting the Principles of International Water Law in the Resolution of Fresh Water Disputes

Data Innovations for Transboundary Freshwater Resources Management: Are Obligations Related to Information Exchange Still Needed?

Monday, March 9th, 2020

The following essay by Dr. Christina Leb is a summary of her recently published monograph (under the same title), which appears in Vol. 4.4, 2019, pp. 3-78, of Brill Research Perspectives in International Water Law. Dr. Leb is a Senior Counsel at the Environment and International Law Unit of the World Bank and a Research Fellow at the Platform for International Water Law housed by the Faculty of Law at the University of Geneva. She can be reached at cleb[at]worldbank.org

Cross-border data and information exchange is one of the most challenging issues for transboundary water management. Water data is deemed sensitive and subject to restrictions with respect to dissemination and use in many countries. Another key challenge is the steady decline of ground monitoring systems due to ageing equipment, and the limited availability of resources for maintaining and modernizing these systems according to the latest standard of technology. At the same time, data and information availability is key to sustainable water management.

The 1997 United Nations Watercourses Convention (Art. 9) and the 2008 Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers (Art. 8) identify regular exchange of data and information as one of the general principles of international water law. The availability of information with respect to hydrological, meteorological, hydrogeological and ecological nature of transboundary water systems, among other, is required to implement the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization. States need to know about the natural characteristics of as well as the demands and stresses on the cross-border water system they share with their neighbours.

The main difficulty for riparian states is to obtain all the information and data required to prepare a detailed assessment according to the equitable and reasonable use principle. The information needs are wide ranging and often, not all information is available at the national level.

New opportunities for access to water related data have opened up with the availability of technological innovations related to real-time data, space technology, and Earth observation. These technologies have led to a drastic increase in quality and availability of hydrological, meteorological and geo-spatial data. In basins where seasonal flows are largely dependent on snow pack, satellite imagery of snow cover can help identify how much and where water is stored in the upper catchments. Information on lake and river surface elevation can facilitate downstream flow predictions. Field-based data sources can be combined with satellite data to further enhance forecasting and planning systems. With the help of telemetry, data can be collected even at remote, inaccessible places and automatically transmitted to central control points, where this data can be converted for various applications, such as flood forecasting systems, warning systems on toxic water pollution, and others. Hydro-meteorological models based on real-time and historic datasets can be used to shorten lead-time and enhance the accuracy of early warning systems.

The key legal drivers making Earth observation data more available come from outside international water law. Space law and the framework established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have paved the way for comprehensive Earth observation initiatives, and continue to accelerate public accessibility of data and information for the benefit of all. The outer space treaties have opened the skies to freedom of exploration and freedom of data generation. And in line with their UNFCCC commitment to systematic observation, states leading in space technology have made most of their climate relevant datasets available to other nations and, to a significant extent, the public.

Publicly available Earth observation information can be used to assess equitable and reasonable use. These datasets reduce the amount of information that need to be shared directly between riparian states. With the help of Earth observation technologies, water managers can base their decision-making on information that belongs to parts of the basin that lie outside of their own national boundaries. The information can also be used to enhance the lead-time for emergency notification. Additionally, the ever-increasing availability and accessibility of data generated through Earth observation technologies may change due diligence standards for riparian states (with respect to information gathering and sharing) in implementing the equitable and reasonable use principle, as well as other international water law obligations.

The monograph, published in the Brill Research Perspectives in International Water Law series, presents an exploratory assessment of the potential impacts of new data technologies on data and information exchange obligations. By highlighting the practical challenges of the use of data generated through Earth observation technologies for water management purposes, the monograph discusses how these technological innovations may, nevertheless, modify the existing contours of the rights and obligations related to data and information exchange in international water law.

Posted in Brill Research Perspectives – International Water Law, International Water Law | Comments Off on Data Innovations for Transboundary Freshwater Resources Management: Are Obligations Related to Information Exchange Still Needed?

New Publication Questions the Status of the UN Watercourses Convention

Thursday, January 9th, 2020

This essay is written by Gabriel Eckstein, Professor of Law at Texas A&M University, director of the TAMU Law Program in Energy, Environmental, and Natural Resources Systems, and director of the International Water Law Project. He can be reached at gabrieleckstein [at] law.tamu.edu.

When the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 May 1997, it was heralded as a major milestone in the evolution of international water law.  In particular, the fact that the Convention was adopted by a significant margin – 103 in favor, three against, and 27 abstentions (UNGA Press Release GA/9248) – indicated broad and robust support for what was then the only global instrument for the management of international watercourses. 

The permanent representative of Mexico to the UN at the time, Ambassador Manuel Tello, asserted that the Watercourses Convention “undoubtedly marks an important step in the progressive development and codification of international law” (U.N. GAOR, 1997, p. 2).  Even China, one of the three members who ultimately opposed the Convention, stated that they believed “the draft articles [on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses] have laid a fairly good foundation for the formulation of an international convention” (U.N. GAOR, 1997, p. 6).

Despite the hopes and promises of the Convention, nearly fifty years after its initial instigation at the United Nations, more than 20 years following its adoption by the UNGA, and over 5 years after it came into force (17 August 2014), enthusiasm for that instrument appears to have waned.  Although the Convention is in force for the states that have ratified it, it only attained that status following seventeen years of relatively slow progress and now has only 36 ratifying parties (Status of the Watercourses Convention).  Moreover, despite continued encouragement by various non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations, few additional states seems poised to accede to the agreement.

A new article – The Status of the UN Watercourses Convention: Does it Still Hold Water?, published in the International Journal of Water Resources Development – examines the extent of support that nations have shown the Watercourses Convention, and assess its continued sustainability.  The article does not reject the normative value of the Convention or its relevance for various nations in their efforts to engage with their neighbors over transboundary freshwater resources.  Rather, the article seeks to ascertain why relatively so few nations have ratified the instrument.

With this in mind, the article examines the support provided the Convention’s drafted norms and procedures during its development, at its historic appearance on the global stage during the 1997 vote at the UNGA, and subsequently as nations ratified the instrument and eventually brought it into force.  It also seeks to ascertain patterns in the 1997 vote and subsequent ratifications, and thereby uncover some of the possible reasons for the diminishing appeal of the instrument.  Charts and tables displaying characteristics of the votes, ratifications, riparian status, geography, and other factors are provided to support the analytical objective.

Finally, the article considers other externalities that may have negatively influenced the level of interest in the Convention that has been offered by nations.  Among others, these include divergent interpretations and misunderstanding among the international community of the norms codified in the instrument, and competition from the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes.

The article – The Status of the UN Watercourses Convention: Does it Still Hold Water? – is published in the International Journal of Water Resources Development and is available here.

Posted in International Water Law, UN Watercourses Convention | Comments Off on New Publication Questions the Status of the UN Watercourses Convention