THE GUIDING LEGAL REGIME AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT OF TRANSBOUNDARY WATERCOURSE: A REVIEW

Abstract

Among contentious international law issues, the transboundary watercourse management, which is exhibited with a conflicting states interest, is at the center of international law discussion. In order to vividly grasp the very essence behind such conflicting states interest, it is quite important to understand how – the international water law works, and – its institutional platform arrangements are established. Hence, a comprehensive review concerning the guiding legal regime and institutional arrangement of transboundary watercourse is very crucial. In the above vein, at the backdrop of the major theoretical doctrine of transboundary watercourse, this paper reviewed and addressed, customary international watercourse laws and the UN transboundary watercourse convention coupled with its incorporated principles. Alongside the aforementioned analysis, the paper reviewed major contentious issues relating to the aforesaid customary laws and principles. Moreover, the paper also reviewed and addressed the modelled categorization of institutional arrangement of transboundary watercourse.

Keywords

• customary law
• institution
• legal theory
• principle
• transboundary watercourse
• watercourse convention

Thanks

The author is immensely grateful to Prof. Dr. Yücel ACER for his critical reading and invaluable feedback throughout the final preparation of this paper.

References

1. Elias N. Stebek. (2007). Eastern Nile at Crossroads: Preservation and Utilization Concerns in Focus. Mizan Law Review, Vol. 1. No. 1, p. 33-59.
2. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Transboundary Waters. Available at Accessed 21/07/2021.
3. Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia).International Court of Justice (ICJ). Case ICJ GL No 92. 25 September 1997.Available at Accessed 14/07/2021.
4. Helsinki Rules on the Uses of Waters of International Rivers (adopted by International Law Association (ILA) in August 1966), Article V. Available at Accessed 15/07/2021.
5. İbrahim Kaya. (2005). The Question of Sources of Law Concerning International Watercourses. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. Vol. 7.No. 1, p. 65-82.
6. ILA. (1873). Available at Accessed 15/07/2021.
7. ILC. (1947). Availableat Accessed 15/07/2021.
8. Joseph W. Dellapenna. (2001). The customary international law of transboundary fresh waters, International Journal of Global Environmental law. Vol. 1.No. ¾, p. 264–305.

9. Lake Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain). Arbitral Tribunal. Reference No. R.I.A.A. 281.November 16, 1957.Available at Accessed 14/07/2021.
10. McIntyre, (2010), p.66; see also for detail ILA. (2004). Commentary on Berlin Rules. Article 12 - Equitable Utilization ,p.20. Available at Accessed 15/07/2021.
11. M.M. Rahaman. (2009). Principles of international water law: creating effective transboundary water resources management. Int. J. Sustainable Society.Vol. 1.No. 3, p. 207-223.
12. M. Tignino & C. Bréthaut. (2020). The role of international case law in implementing the obligation not to cause significant harm. Int Environ Agreements, Vol. 20, p. 631–648.
13. Owen McIntyre. (2010). International Water Law: Concepts, Evolution and Development. In Anton Earle, Anders Jägerskog and Joakim Öjendal (eds). Transboundary Water Management Principles and Practice.1st Edition. London. New York. Earthscan.
14. Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ). Case PCIJ Series A no 23. 20 August 1929. Available at Accessed 15/07/2021.
15. Peter Millington, Douglas Olson & Shelley McMillan. (2006). An introduction to integrated river basin management, from Concepts to Good Practice. Briefing note no. 1 – An Introduction to Integrated River Basin Management. Washington, D.C. World Bank Group. Available at Accessed 20/05/2021.
16. P. K. Parhi & R. N. Sankhua. (2014). Beyond the Transboundary River: Issues of Riparian Responsibilities. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A. Vol. 94. No. 4, p. 257–261.
17. P. W. Birnie, A. E. Boyle & C. Redgwell. (2009). International Law and the Environment. 3rd edition. Oxford. Clarendon Press.
18. R. Vollmer, R. Ardakanian, M. Hare, J. Leentvaar, C. Van der Schaaf & L. Wirkus. (2009). Institutional Capacity Development in Transboundary Water Management. United Nations World Water Assessment Programme Insights. Paris: UNESCO. Available at Accessed 15/07/2021.
19. Stephen McCaffrey. (2001). The Law of International Watercourses – Non-Navigational Uses. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
20. Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder Case. (United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden V. Poland).
21. The convention uses this terminology to evaluate transboundary watercourses vis-a-vis environmental harms. Available at Accessed 15/07/2021.
22. The 1992 United Nation Convention on Biological Diversity (Adopted on 5 June 1992 by UN General Assembly and entered into force on 29 December 1993), Article 3.Available at Accessed 15/07/2021.
23. The 1992 United Nation Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Adopted on12 August 1992 by UN General), Principles 2, 4, 13, 24. Available at Accessed 15/07/2021.
24. UN Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Adopted on 17 March 1992 and entered into force on 6 October 1996).
25. UN Watercourses Convention. User’s Guide Fact Sheet Series, Number 5. No Significant Harm Rule. Available at Accessed 15/07/2021.
26. United Nation Waters. Transboundary Waters. Available at Accessed 21/07/2021.
27. Yusuf Ali Mohammed. (2014). The ‘Water Security’ Principle Under Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement vis- à-vis International Water Law. (LL.B Dissertation).Dire Dawa University. School of Law.