Saturday, January 30, 2010

Helsinki rulz! (+ the Convention)

I've been trying to understand what kind of legislation exist that regulates or guides the use/management/protection of transboundary waters. For what I now know, there are at least two important laws: (1) Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, (2) The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers. So I read them, and thought I'd summarize you the content AND character of those laws and in the end I'll tell some of my own observations or reflections. Voilá!

Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses
  •  The convention was adopted in 1997 by the UN and was decided to enter force when 35 countries would ratify the document. In november 2009 there were 18 signatories, which means, that the convention is not yet in force.
  • The convention discusses the uses and protection of all waters that cross international borders, including surface and groundwater.
  • Parts of the convention are for example:
    • Definition of important concepts
    • The relation of the convention with other similar agreements
    • Definition of equitable and reasonable utilization of waters: what are the relevant factors that must be taken into account?
    • Obligation not to cause significant harm to other watercourse states
    • Obligation to exchange data and information on the condition of the watercourse between states
    • The correct procedure of notificating other watercourse states of planned measures
    • Regulations on protection and preservation of ecosystems nearby transboundary watercourse
    • Emergency situations: notification, appropriate measures
    • Settlement procedure of possible disputes between the watercourse states
The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers
  • The law was adopted by the International Law Association in Helsinki in 1966.
  • Rules of the law are applicable to the use of an international drainage basin except if some other convention or agreement among the basin state provides otherwise.
  • Parts of the law are for example:
    • Equitable utilization of waters: every basin state has right to a reasonable and equitable share in the beneficial uses of the waters. Factors that have to be taken into account when defining a reasonable and equitable share.
    • The responsabilities of each state in the prevention and reduction of water pollution.
    • The correct procedure for settlement and prevention of disputes.
Are you still following? As I haven't studied law, I guess there is a lot I didn't understand completely, but I think I more or less know now what is the content of transboundary water laws/agreements. Some time ago, when I was doing my bachelor thesis, I became familiar with the River Uruguay Statute, which is a similar agreement as these two, but regional, made by two countries. Despite the scale difference, I remember that the content of the statute was pretty much the same as in these two global once, just more detailed. So by knowing these two documents one can more or less now what is always taken into account when making such an agreement - global or regional.

How I understood the character of the Convention is that it was aimed to facilitate the making of more detailed regional agreements on the use of transboundary waters, as the regional agreements are often insufficient or don't even exist.

Some questions that I started wondering when reading these texts:

 Why hasn't the Convention been ratified by more than 18 states? Has the promotion been insufficient or is it because of the content of the Convention?   

What is the real potential of this kind of international laws/agreements? Can they really have real influence on a regional scale, prevent conflicts or facilitate the making of regional agreements? What are the hindrances?

Ok, next time I'll probably post you something about the stakeholder analisis that we are going to do together on monday. Btw, I think our last meeting was good! In the end I felt that we had a consensus of what we are doing, which is not obvious :)

No comments:

Post a Comment