[MUSIC] [MUSIC] Within the international system, States do not have the right to threaten or use force in international relations. The corollary of this is the obligation to settle their disputes peacefully and the field of international watercourses is no exception. When conflicts arise over how an international river is managed or used, States may not, under international law, resort to force in order to settle disputes. They must seek out peaceful means to settle the dispute. The peaceful means reference can be found in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. Looking at how Article 33 of the United Nations Charter is structured, we see that there is a distinction between diplomatic methods and non-diplomatic methods (judicial methods). In water-related disputes, States have resorted to diplomatic methods, judicial means to settle their disputes. And then, it is interesting that in the development of modern arbitration, one of the first modern contemporary arbitrations, is an arbitration related to water, a dispute over water between France and Spain, the famous Lake Lanoux dispute. So we see that even very early on in the development of arbitration, water-related disputes were present. But I was saying that, in practice, States use diplomatic means rather than judicial means. I will not dwell on the diplomatic methods but it is important to recall that they may consist of, for example, turning to a commission or to a river basin body to facilitate how a dispute between two States is settled. Consider the dispute that took place between Mauritania and Senegal in the early 1990s, which was resolved by the Organization for the Development of the Senegal River. We can see that diplomacy plays a very important role. But I would like to emphasise the importance of judicial bodies in how water-related disputes are settled. Other than the Lake Lanoux case, one of the big cases in the field of water is the famous Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case which was settled by the International Court of Justice in 1997, post-Rio. This is a very interesting dispute. It was the first time that an international court had really linked international water law and international environmental law. It reflects the importance of considering environmental standards in the protection and use of the resources of an international river. So that was really a very important step in the judicial settlement of water-related disputes. It shows us how international environmental law and international water law are linked, the importance of having a vision, a sustainable development approach in the management of international watercourses. So we see that international courts and tribunals helped to develop the content of international water law or the principles of international water law. The International Court of Justice has also contributed greatly to the evolution of international water law in another major water dispute, this time in Latin America, between Argentina and Uruguay and the famous case of the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay. As we know, the two States have an agreement called the Uruguay River Statute, which details a series of rules on cooperation, notification of projects on the River Uruguay and includes rules on the protection of the river. So what is very interesting in this case, is that it shows the importance of a judicial settlement. These two State, as part of the 1975 Statute, had already established an Administrative Commission called the CARU. This was a basin commission that would enable States to cooperate over the Uruguay River. But in practice, CARU was used very little. CARU was actually compared to Sleeping Beauty. And the dispute between Argentina and Uruguay was taken before the International Court of Justice. The Court resuscitates CARU and re-establishes its importance for the Uruguay River system. And so the International Court of Justice really took the opportunity to remind States that they are supposed to cooperate within this organization, that they are supposed to exchange environmental information, but also hydrological information through this administrative commission, and therefore through this river basin body. And so we see that the water-related disputes which appear before the international tribunals and in particular before the International Court of Justice, can be used as an opportunity to strengthen the institutional dimension, to strengthen the importance of cooperation within a river basin organization. The 2010 Court ruling in the case of the Pulp Mills demonstrated the importance of institutional cooperation in the field of prevention and resolution of water-related disputes. However, the 2010 ruling also strengthened international environmental law and its importance in the context of international watercourses. One recalls, for example, that the Court took advantage of these disputes to recall the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment and that all States are required to conduct an environmental impact assessment before authorising any activities that may impact an international watercourse. So it's very interesting to see that the Court recognized the customary nature of the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment. So, disputes related to water, the settlement of these disputes in practice enriches international water law and its place within the international system. But beside the International Court of Justice, other courts, other tribunals have contributed greatly to water disputes, and the development of international water law. I am referring, for example, to the case taken before the Permanent Court of Arbitration between India and Pakistan, on the famous Kishenganga Dam which posed several legal issues relating to the protection of the ecosystems of an international river. But I would like to conclude by saying that, without doubt, tribunals contribute to the settlement of water-related disputes and the development of international water law. However in practice, there are other mechanisms which are not not necessarily judicial, permanent or arbitral. For example, a neutral expert, a technical expert, may be involved. Water-related disputes do not necessarily have to be resolved by lawyers. I think that there is a rather unique dimension to water disputes. There is not only the legal dimension but also the scientific dimension. So the use of a technical expert or a neutral expert can be very useful in settling water disputes which are not purely legal in nature but can also have very technical, scientific aspects. And the most illustrative example of this is the dispute between Pakistan and India, relating to the Baglihar Dam. When Pakistan opposed the construction of the dam on the Indus River, shared by Pakistan and India, they resorted to a neutral expert who solved (to some extent) the dispute with Pakistan. Of course, legal advisers also helped to resolve these disputes but it is interesting to see that in the end, when resolving water disputes, we have a panoply, a variety of methods to which States can resort to effectively resolve disputes before they lead to conflict. So to conclude, negotiation is important. We saw this in the example of the Nile and the dam, of the Great Renaissance and the negotiations that stabilised the relationship between Ethiopia the Sudan and Egypt but it is also clear that the role of judicial or sui generis bodies is very important in the settlement of water disputes. MUSIC
