[MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] Ladies and gentlemen. We are going to examine how basin organisations contribute to the prevention and settlement of disputes. So you know, basin commissions, basin organizations, joint bodies, these are the various ways that we refer to these mechanisms which play a crucial role in how riparian States cooperate. And as you have seen, these bodies enable cooperation between riparian States in so many different ways. Dispute prevention and resolution is one of these ways. And this is an important function because disputes arise between States which may turn into conflicts. They need to be addressed. We talked about the different methods of resolving disputes. What is important, and what is notable I think, is that when we discuss these different methods of dispute resolution, we remember that the settlement provided by these joint commissions is important and is the predominant choice in settling a dispute. The 1997 Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses Article 33 (2) notes the role that these commissions should play if disputes arise between riparian States. So, we see the importance of joint commissions highlighted. In the various basin agreements that you are going to analyse, you will look at the content and you will see that the dispute settlement procedures may vary from agreement to agreement. This diversity is important as it takes into account the specific relationship between riparian States or the specific characteristics of a watercourse. But they are present and in fact they are increasingly present. And this is important in how the contents of the watercourse agreements evolve. Even though they are increasingly present, what is interesting to see is that there are some rivers which have always given this function to a joint commission. I am thinking of the 1909 Agreement between the United States and Canada over their transboundary waters. The agreement stated that disputes can be settled by the commission mentioned in the agreement, and, this is the notable part, the commission can settle disputes in a binding sense. So the decision of the commission is binding. You will not find this particular feature in other cases but in the case of Pulp mills, as you know, the International Court had extensively analyzed the 1975 Statute on the Protection of the River Uruguay and noted that the Administrative Commission of the Uruguay River, CARU was performing a conciliation role. It had stressed the importance of the role of this commission, in particular with regard to the settlement of disputes. Other agreements include this possibility. I could speak at another time about the Indus River and the dispute settlement procedure. In the case of the Indus River, if you remember, the dispute settlement provision stated that before a State can call on a neutral expert, a compulsory mediation procedure or arbitration procedure, States must try to settle their differences in good faith within the Indus Commission. Therefore, the Indus Commission has a role in the settlement of disputes. Now, if you look at the Danube Agreement or the the Mekong Agreement. You will see that the commissions set up within the framework of those river management agreements that I have just mentioned, are also expected to perform these functions. I mentioned the institutional terms of explicit functions to settle disputes. I would like to stress that practice shows us that even when it is not explicitly stated in the agreements, in practice, organizations benefit from implied powers. These are not explicitly recognized but are considered necessary to achieve the object and purpose of a protection agreement for a basin or a watercourse. So in this context, we also see organizations that try to settle disputes between riparian States or one or two or more riparian States and those implied functions, these implied powers, in my view, correspond to the object and purpose of all agreements concerning the protection of international watercourses, to regulate, to manage as well as possible, to protect the waters. Therefore, a dispute will certainly create cooperation problems between the riparian States and it would go against the object and purpose of the basin agreement. Finally, in relation to all these mechanisms, I would like to refer to a case taken before the International Court of Justice, between Cameroon and Nigeria. It was a case which concerned land and sea borders between Cameroon and Nigeria. When we speak about land borders, we have to consider Lake Chad, because the border also includes Lake Chad, which is a particular way to define a boundary. But I emphasize that on this occasion, Nigeria, believing that the Court had no jurisdiction, had raised a preliminary objection, among many others and said that the role of the Lake Chad Commission was to resolve disputes and that the Court should not be involved in resolving the dispute over Lake Chad. And the Court said something that is important. The court did not deny the role of the Lake Chad Commission in preventing and settling disputes. But stressed that this function was not exclusive and that other bodies, including judicial bodies, can also settle disputes. And this is important because currently, when we look at the international treaties on international watercourses, very little is said about exclusivity of the role of the management and protection of watercourses. For my part, I think that this was never considered but they can live in parallel. And that's one aspect I'd like to come back to. Even if there is a judicial procedure in progress, the diplomatic process through the basin commissions plays a very important role. If the dispute was resolved through a basin commission, then one could conclude the proceedings before a judicial body. The basin commissions have an important role particularly in the area of ​​dispute prevention and resolution. {0}Thank you."{/0} {1} {/1} MUSIC