Archive for the ‘UN Watercourses Convention’ Category

Shared Watercourses and Water Security in South Asia: Challenges of Negotiating and Enforcing Treaties

Monday, August 27th, 2018

The following essay by Drs. Salman M. A. Salman and Kishor Uprety is a summary of their recently published monograph (under the same title), which appears in Vol. 3(3) 2018, pp. 1-100, of Brill Research Perspectives in International Water Law.  Dr. Salman is an academic researcher and consultant on water law and policy and Editor-in-Chief of Brill Research Perspectives, International Water Law. He can be reached at SalmanMASalman [at] gmail.com. Dr. Uprety is Senior Lawyer with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and an Associate Editor of Brill Research Perspectives, International Water Law. He can be reached at Dr.kishoruprety [at] gmail.com.

 

A large number of rivers in the South Asia region are shared across borders. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Nepal and Pakistan share more than two dozen major rivers. Conflicting claims over those transboundary watercourses is a major security challenge in the region. Indeed, shared watercourses have influenced South Asia’s geography and history, as well as riparians’ responses to the challenges of utilizing, managing, and protecting such water bodies. Because of scarcity, population growth, and climate change impacts, national calls for water security have become louder and more intense in each of these countries. Consequently, collaboration among the countries of South Asia for ensuring equitable sharing of such watercourses has not been optimal.

Map of South Asia's shared watercourses

Map of South Asia’s shared watercourses

In addition, other factors such as information sharing and lack of trust has exacerbated the differences. While most countries do not have reliable systems for data generation, those possessing some hydrological data consider them state secrets, restricting their exchange. Even when treaty obligations exist, data-sharing practices are ad hoc, and the range of information shared is limited. Thus, negotiating new transboundary water treaties amongst the South Asia countries has become a daunting task, and enforcing existing ones remains a real challenge.

With the above constraints in the background, the monograph provides an overview of the notion of water security in South Asia, and discusses the challenges as well as the opportunities for establishing governance frameworks for shared watercourses in the region.

The introduction of the monograph begins with an analysis of the concept of water security, and how the concept emerged and spread as a world-wide and complex phenomenon. It also discusses the challenges the concept imposes in designing and implementing governance regimes for shared watercourses. To further set the stage and focus, and to establish a better appreciation of the challenges, the introduction then discusses the geopolitical setting of the region.

The first part of the monograph starts by discussing the treaty practices in South Asia regarding their shared watercourses. Each instrument is presented as a unique document and effort, finalized after lengthy negotiations with each of the riparians’ specific objectives, interests and strategies in mind. In that context, the monograph reviews the regimes for shared watercourses already in force, as well as those that are under discussion and consideration.

The Indus and the Ganges river basins are the two regimes that are currently in force. The discussion of the Indus Basin regime focuses on the historical background and the complexities involved in the unusually long process of the treaty negotiations. The discussion involves the role of the World Bank, which provided its good offices to the parties, and the reasons for success of the Bank’s intervention. This is followed by an analysis of the treaty provisions, particularly its unique dispute resolution mechanisms. In this context, the monograph also discusses the several cases of “differences” and “disputes” that have emerged between the two riparian parties─India and Pakistan─and analyzes how the treaty provisions facilitated their resolution. This part of the monograph also elaborates and critiques the role of the World Bank in the dispute resolution process.

The second regime in force discussed in the monograph relates to the Ganges Basin, including some of its tributaries. Several treaties have been concluded for the governance of the Basin. The monograph reviews and analyzes each of them, including the history of the negotiations and the main provisions of each treaty, with a critical analysis of implementation.

The discussion also covers the efforts in South Asia, which have been ongoing for several decades, to establish regimes to govern some other important shared watercourses. Negotiations amongst the riparian countries on these basins have been difficult and the outcomes have been poor. In this context, the monograph reviews the regimes pertaining to the Teesta and the Brahmaputra basins, and highlights the difficulties that have emerged.

The subsequent part of the monograph deals with the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention. It focuses on the position of each of the South Asian countries vis-a-vis the Convention, which, interestingly, none has become a party to. The monograph discusses the reasons for such positions, and analyzes the countries’ malaise, as well as their specific concerns regarding the Convention.

The conclusion of the monograph recapitulates and highlights the main problematic situations of South Asia’s shared watercourses and analyzes the prospects for addressing them. In so doing, the conclusion provides some concrete suggestions derived from experiences in other countries and shared basins. The conclusion also includes some recommendations that can assist in enhancing cooperation, mutual trust and understanding amongst the South Asia riparians, and strengthening and consolidating of their achievements on their shared watercourses.

The monograph is dedicated “To the memory of Professor Charles B. Bourne (1921 – 2012); one of the pioneers and innovators in the field of international water law.”

The entire article is available here.

 

Shared Water Resources in West Africa – Relevance and Application of the UN Watercourses and the UNECE Water Conventions

Monday, April 16th, 2018

The following essay by Nwamaka Chigozie Odili is a summary of her recently published monograph (under the same title), which appears in Vol. 3(1) 2018, pp. 1-98, of Brill Research Perspectives in International Water Law. Mrs Nwamaka Odili is a Legal Officer with Federal Ministry of Justice, Abuja, Nigeria. She can be reached at amaka142 [at] yahoo.com.

 

West Africa has twenty-five shared watercourses but only six of them are governed by legal instruments. Yet, the region, like the rest of the world, is exposed to water-related stress due to the impacts of climate change, urbanization, and overpopulation. This position results in abundance of fresh water in some countries of the region and limited or scarce availability of the resource in others. The need for a regulatory framework for managing all the region’s transboundary watercourses, therefore, cannot be overemphasized. Although the principles of customary international law apply in all cases whether there are regulatory instruments or not, treaties create obligation that are needed to strengthen the international water law system. Global framework treaties like the UN Watercourses Convention and the UNECE Water Convention provide the needed support through universal norms ‘to shape the content of instruments adopted at the regional and basin level’ (Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, ‘Freshwater and International Law: the Interplay between Universal, Regional and Basin Perspectives’ (Paris, UNESCO, 2009) at 5).

Transboundary Watercourses in West Africa

Regulated

 

Transboundary WatercourseRiparian States
Niger River BasinNigeria, Niger, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Benin, Cameroun, Guinea, Mali, Chad
Lake Chad BasinCameroun, Nigeria, Chad, Central African Republic, Niger, Libya
Volta River BasinGhana, Burkina Faso, Benin, Togo, Côte d’Ivoire and Mali
Senegal River BasinSenegal, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania
Gambia River BasinGambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Senegal
Koliba-Korubal River BasinGuinea and Guinea Bissau

Non-Regulated

 

Transboundary WatercourseRiparian States
Cross River BasinNigeria and Cameroon
Akpa Yafi River BasinNigeria and Cameroon
Queme River Basin Nigeria and Benin
Tano River BasinGhana and Côte d’Ivoire
Komoe River BasinCôte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Burkina Faso
Atui River BasinMauritania and West Sahara
Mono River Basin Togo and Benin
Bia River BasinGhana and Côte d’Ivoire
Sassandra River BasinGuinea and Côte d’Ivoire
Cavally River BasinCôte d’Ivoire, Guinea and Liberia
Cestos River BasinCôte d’Ivoire, Guinea and Liberia
St John River BasinLiberia and Guinea
St. Paul River BasinLiberia and Guinea
Loffa River BasinLiberia and Guinea
Mana Morro River BasinLiberia and Sierra Leone
Moa River BasinLiberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea
Little Scarcies River BasinSierra Leone and Guinea
Great Scarcies River BasinSierra Leone and Guinea
Geba River BasinGuinea Bissau, Guinea and Senegal

Since adoption of the General Act of Berlin in 1885, which dealt, inter alia, with the Niger River, more agreements have been contracted for the management of some of the shared watercourses in West Africa, particularly in the post-colonial era. Hence, West Africa contributed through these agreements to the development of international water law prior to the adoption of the UN Watercourses Convention and the UNECE Water Conventions in the 1990s. Initial instruments dealt primarily with navigation, while later agreements addressed the need for co-operation and incorporated other principles of customary international water law. The two conventions, no doubt, have influenced this trend such that water regimes in the region improved over time. This raises the question: do riparian states in West Africa need to be parties to either or both water conventions to enhance management, sharing and protection of their shared watercourses?

The influence of the UN Watercourses Convention in the region is established because water regimes implemented after adoption of the UN Watercourses Convention reflect some of its substantive and procedural provisions. Moreover some countries in West Africa are parties to the Convention. On the other hand, influence of the UNECE Water Convention in the region is limited and its potential benefits have yet to be determined. Article 25 and 26 of the UNECE Water Convention were amended to allow non-UNECE states that are members of the United Nations to become parties to the Convention. However, its mandatory provisions regarding basin organization and compliance with its stringent requirements, details, and tasks necessitates significant foreseeable financial and technical resources, which countries in West Africa now lack.

Although most West Africa water instruments are flawed by loopholes and there is need to address the problems generated by unregulated shared watercourses in the region, West Africa nations do not need to be contracting parties to both the UN Watercourses Convention and the UNECE Water Convention. What West Africa needs is a treaty position that accommodates the reality of the management of its transboundary water resources. Adoption of global treaties by the states of West Africa is not sufficient because the universal law in those treaties needs to be complemented by regional or basin agreement for realistic implementation. The important issue is not which global convention the states belong to, but rather how strong and efficient transboundary water resources management in the region has grown over time. To achieve this goal and to further address major gaps and failings in transboundary water resources management in West Africa, states in the region could negotiate a region-based water treaty to reflect the needs and concerns of the region and supplement it with basin-specific treaties.

The entire article is available here.

 

Inter-State Water Law in the United States of America: What Lessons for International Water Law?

Monday, September 25th, 2017

The following essay by Professor Rhett Larson is a summary of his recently published monograph (under the same title), which appears in Vol. 2.3, 2017, pp. 1-82, of Brill Research Perspectives in International Water Law. Professor Larson is a Professor of Law at the Arizona State University School of Law. He can be reached at Rhett.Larson [at] asu.edu.

 

John Wesley Powell was an 19th Century explorer of the western United States. In a report to the U.S. Congress, Powell recommended that the borders of future western states be based on watersheds and warned of the risks associated with political subdivisions sharing transboundary waters. Congress ignored Powell’s advice, and established western state boundaries with many inter-state waters traversing and, in some cases forming, sub-national borders. As a result, and as I discuss in my recent monograph published in Brill Research Perspectives on International Water Law, the United States has a long and colorful history of transboundary water management that provides both encouraging lessons and cautionary tales for international water law.

For example, the common law doctrine of “equitable apportionment” developed by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases involving its original jurisdiction over inter-state water disputes is similar in many respects to the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization embodied in Articles 5 and 6 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses ( “Watercourse Convention”).

RhettLarson-Inter-State_Water_Law_in_the_USBeyond the obvious use of the word “equitable” in the articulation of both the inter-state doctrine and the international doctrine, the factors set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in determining equitable apportionment are similar to the factors laid out in Article 6 of the Watercourse Convention in determining equitable utilization. The U.S. Supreme Court considers “physical and climatic conditions,” and international law considers “[g]eographic, hydrographic, hydrological, climatic, ecological and other factors of a natural character.” The U.S. Supreme Court considers consumptive uses, while the Watercourse Convention includes considerations of the “effects of the use or uses of watercourses.” The U.S. Supreme Court considers wasteful uses, and the Watercourse Convention includes considerations of conservation options.

Despite these similarities, the U.S. doctrine of equitable apportionment and the factors included in determining reasonable and equitable utilization under the Watercourse Convention have differences that are important to note for what each doctrine may learn from the other. The Watercourse Convention expressly includes consideration of population, which seems an obvious factor missing from inter-state water law. The Watercourse Convention also considers both existing and potential uses of the watercourse, while the U.S. doctrine of equitable apportionment considers only “consumptive uses,” not necessarily potential future uses. It might also be helpful for the U.S. doctrine of equitable apportionment to expressly factor in ecological considerations in a way similar to the Watercourse Convention, because those considerations may not always be adequately captured by the concept of waste embodied in the U.S. law.

On the other hand, the U.S. equitable apportionment doctrine includes a cost-benefit analysis consideration that could be a helpful factor to evaluate equitable utilization in international water law. Additionally, the consideration of the character and rate of return flows under U.S. inter-state water law may also be a helpful factor to include in determining equitable utilization in international water law.

In Bean v. Morris, an early equitable apportionment case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court identified an important factor when evaluating inter-state water allocations that could be incorporated into international equitable and reasonable utilization analysis. States in the U.S. typically rely on one of two legal regimes for allocation rights to water. The approach to water rights in eastern states is generally common law riparian rights based on English and Roman laws, under which rights are apportioned to owners of property abutting water bodies based on the requirement that uses be reasonable. The approach to water rights in western states is generally prior appropriation, with water rights based on a first-in-time, first-in-right scheme, subject to beneficial use requirements and the prohibition against waste.

Neighboring U.S. states sharing transboundary waters can therefore have dramatically different approaches to allocating water rights and different policy aims in water management. These differences have aggravated inter-state water disputes over transboundary waters. The U.S. Supreme Court, in an early equitable apportionment case, sought to mitigate the impact of, if not reconcile, these different approaches to water rights. In Bean v. Morris, the Supreme Court held that it would apply principles of prior appropriation when allocating water between states that recognize prior appropriation as their own internal water rights system.

International water law could similarly look to using domestic water law principles held in common between two nations sharing a watercourse as a factor in the evaluation of reasonable and equitable utilization. Such an approach would be a more targeted application of Article 38(1)(c) of the International Court of Justice’s statute authorizing reliance on “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” in resolving international disputes. Nations are perhaps more likely to view such a factor as reasonable and equitable if based on domestic laws already accepted and legitimized under their respective domestic laws.

Other potentially helpful lessons from U.S. inter-state water law for international water law may include the use of special masters to facilitate dispute resolution and the recognition and quantification of water rights held by indigenous peoples. Cautionary tales for international water law from U.S. inter-state water law include the inter-state problems created by the bifurcation of groundwater and surface water rights, and the over- or under-empowerment of basin-level, inter-jurisdictional commissions. Many countries with federal structures, like the United States, have been dealing with inter-jurisdictional water disputes for generations, and therefore could be fertile ground for cultivating ideas for reform in international water law.

The entire article is available here.

Online Presentations on International Water Law and Policy

Thursday, June 18th, 2015

By Gabriel Eckstein

In recent years, technology has allowed us to become more informed and engaged at greater distances. This includes viewing lectures and presentations via the Internet. I wanted to draw your attention to a number of presentations on international water law and policy that were recently posted online and that may be of interest. If any of you know of other relevant lectures online, please do let me know via the comment box below or at iwlpwebsite [at] gmail.com.

On 22 May 2015, the Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland, organized two lectures as part of its SCELG Seminar Series.

Entry into Force of the United Nations Watercourses Convention: Why Should it Matter

Dr. Salman M.A. Salman, fellow with the International Water Resources Association, delivered a lecture in which he outlined the progressive development leading to the adoption of the United Nations Watercourses Convention, and comprehensively explained the importance and relevance of the Convention now it has entered into force. The seminar was supported by the Scottish Government.    View the presentation here.

Transboundary Aquifers: An Interdisciplinary Conversation

Prof. Gabriel Eckstein, Professor of Law at Texas A&M University, gave a guest lecture on the challenges for transboundary aquifer law and governance. The lecture was followed by a roundtable discussion that also included an esteemed panel from the fields of hydrogeology (Prof. Robert Kalin, University of Strathclyde), human geography (Dr. Naho Mirumachi, King’s College London), and international water law (Dr. Salman M.A. Salman, International Water Resources Association).    View the presentation and roundtable here.

Over the past few years, United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law has organized a lectures series on various international issues, including International Watercourses.

Dr. Stephen C. McCaffrey, Distinguished Professor and Scholar at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, delivered a lecture on The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. This lecture provides an overview of the background and content of the Convention, and then examines the Convention’s influence. The lecture is available in Arabic, English, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish and can be viewed here.

Dr. Salman M.A. Salman presented a lecture on The Evolution, Codification and Current Status of International Water Law. The lecture describes the developments in international water law since 1911. It reviews and analyzes the work of the Institute of International Law, the International Law Association, and the International Law Commission, paying particular attention to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. The lecture is available in Arabic, English, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish and can be viewed here.

Not long before he passed away in 2013,  Ambassador Chusei Yamada, who served on the ILC during the drafting of the UN Watercourses Convention and later as Special Rapporteur for the ILC’s Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers, delivered a lecture on Codification of the Law on Transboundary Aquifers (Groundwaters) by the United Nations. The lecture describes how the UN International Law Commission, a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly with the mandate of codification of customary international law, formulated Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers (groundwaters) for the proper management of the transboundary aquifers in order to attain the reasonable and equitable utilization through international cooperation. The lecture is available in Arabic, English, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish and can be viewed here.

The Global Environmental Facility Groundwater Community of Practice, coordinated by UNESCO-IHP, has featured a of seminars on groundwater law and policy.

Webinar #1, which took place 17 October 2013, was entitled Multiple Dimensions of Groundwater Governance: What We Are Doing and What More Can We Do? The video and webinar material can be accessed here.

Webinar #2, which took place 11 December 2013, was entitled Groundwater and International Law: Current Status and Recent Developments. The video and webinar material can be accessed here.

Webinar #3, which took place 29 April 2014, was entitled The Coastal Zone: Where Groundwater Merges With the Sea. The video and webinar material can be accessed here.

On 15 January 2015, IGRAC and UNESCO-IHP organized the IW:LEARN Groundwater Webinar entitled: Moving with the Momentum: Reviewing Lessons for Groundwater from 2014 and a Looking Ahead to 2015. Part I of this program can be accessed here  /  Part II can be accessed here.

 

IWLP Blog’s Series on 1997 UN Watercourses Convention Republished in Water Policy Journal and in Russian translation

Thursday, February 26th, 2015

By Gabriel Eckstein

As you may recall, the IWLP Blog recently featured a series of twelve essays on the coming into force of the 1997 UN Convention on the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses.  That series was recently republished in Water Policy, a journal published by the International Water Association and the official journal of the World Water Council.

Part I, containing the first 6 essays, was published as: Specially Invited Opinions and Research Report of the International Water Law Project: Global Perspectives on the Entry into Force of the UN Watercourses Convention 2014:  Part One. Water Policy, Vol. 16(6), available at doi: 10.2166/wp.2014.008 (subscription required).

Part II, containing the next 6 essays was published as: Specially Invited Opinions and Research Report of the International Water Law Project: Global Perspectives on the Entry into Force of the UN Watercourses Convention 2014:  Part Two. Water Policy, Vol. 17(1), available at doi: 10.2166/wp.2014.009 (subscription required).

In addition, the entire series was translated into Russian by the Scientific Information Center of the Interstate Coordination Water Commission of Central Asia. That version can be found here.

State of Palestine Accedes to UN Watercourses Convention

Wednesday, January 7th, 2015
Jordan River Basin

Jordan River Basin

By Gabriel Eckstein

 

On 6 January 2015, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary for the UN Watercourses Convention, issued a formal notice that the “State of Palestine” had acceded to the Convention and that the treaty would enter into force for the “State of Palestine” on 2 April 2015. That will make the “State of Palestine” the 36th Party to the UN Watercourses Convention. The Convention formally went into force on 17 August 2014 (see here).

The move was part of a broad Palestinian effort to join eighteen international treaties (see here and here). While Palestinian membership in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has overshadowed all of the other ratifications, the accession to the Watercourses Convention is noteworthy in a number of respects.

Of the 36 Member States, nine (including the “State of Palestine”) are from the Middle East and North Africa, indicating that a substantial percentage of the region’s nations are committed to the terms and norms of the UN Watercourses Convention. In addition, with this accession to the Convention, Israel is now the only state in the Jordan River Basin to not have joined the treaty. Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria – all riparians to the Jordan River Basin – became Parties to the Convention in 1999, 1999, and 1998, respectively (see here).

Whether this reality will have any bearing on future hydro-diplomacy or management of the Jordan River remains to be seen. At the very least, it suggests that the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors will look to the Convention to guide them on any future transboundary water-related negotiation. To some extent, this could aid them in reaching consensus among themselves, as well as forge a concerted front in their dealings with Israel. On the other hand, it may give Israel an advantage in future negotiations since they have bound themselves to work within the Convention’s framework while Israel has not.

La entrada en vigor de la Convención de Naciones Unidas sobre Cursos de Agua Internacionales (The entry into force of the UN Convention on International Watercourses)

Monday, October 13th, 2014

The following post is by Dr. Nicolás Boeglin of the la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Costa Rica. It was prepared in Spanish to broaden the discussion about the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention and encourage the conversation in the Spanish-speaking world. The IWLP welcomes such opportunities and looks forward to engaging with friends and colleagues in multiple languages and regions globally.

El siguiente artículo del Dr. Nicolás Boeglin (Costa Rica) analiza el significado de la entrada en vigor de la Convención de Naciones Unidas de 1997 sobre Cursos de Agua Internacionales desde la perspectiva de América Latina. El Dr. Boeglin es profesor de derecho internacional público en la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Costa Rica y es consultor en esta materia. Puede ser contactado al siguiente correo: nboeglin (a) gmail.com.

El pasado mes de agosto, al cumplirse los 90 días posteriores a la ratificación número 35 (Vietnam, en mayo del 2014), entró oficialmente en vigor la “Convención sobre el derecho de los usos de los cursos de agua internacionales para fines distintos de la navegación“, adoptada en 1997 por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas.

Se trata de un instrumento internacional que, de acuerdo a la práctica del derecho internacional cuando se trata de explorar nuevo ámbitos normativos, recurre a la técnica jurídica de la convención marco (“framework convention” en inglés): esta expresión refiere a textos normativos que sistematizan un conjunto de principios generales que puedanervir de base para establecer una futura cooperación interestatal. Un artículo de doctrina sobre este peculiar tipo de instrumentos indica que: “El carácter de convenio marco de una convención se fundamenta en la decisión de las partes de delegar aspectos relevantes para lograr los objetivos de dicha convención a acuerdos posteriores” (traducción libre del autor, p. 441).

La Convención parte de una definición mucho más integral de “curso de agua internacional“, comparada con la clásicamente usada de “río internacional”. Su artículo 2 estipula que: “A los efectos de la presente Convención: a) Por “curso de agua” se entenderá un sistema de aguas de superficie y subterráneas que, en virtud de su relación física, constituyen un conjunto unitario y normalmente fluyen a una desembocadura común; b) Por “curso de agua internacional” se entenderá un curso de agua algunas de cuyas partes se encuentran en Estados distintos“. De acuerdo a este esfuerzo conceptual, podemos citar, a modo de ejemplo, las iniciativas de España para delimitar “la parte española de las demarcaciones hidrográficas correspondientes a las cuencas hidrográficas compartidas con otros países” (artículo 3 del Real Decreto 125/2007). En contraste, podemos indicar que, en la primera controversia sobre los derechos de navegación en el Río San Juan entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua llevada ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ), ninguna de las partes logro imponer su pretensión sobre la calificación jurídica del río. En su decisión del 13/07/2009, la CIJ afirmó que “…no cree tampoco, en consecuencia, deber decidir sobre el punto de saber si el San Juan entra en la categoría de los “ríos internacionales” – tal como lo sostiene Costa Rica –  o si constituye un río nacional que comporta un elemento internacional – según la tesis de Nicaragua” (párrafo 34, traducción libre).

La Convención de 1997 contiene varios principios (Artículos 5 a 10) que deben guiar el actuar de los Estados del curso de agua internacional. La lectura del artículo 7 relativa a la obligación de no causar un daño significativo a otros usuarios posiblemente recuerde un sin fin de controversias acaecidas en los últimos años en diversas partes del mundo. Muchas de ellas, como por ejemplo entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua, o entre Argentina y Uruguay, no encuentran una solución satisfactoria en parte debido al uso de nociones jurídicas limitadas que adolecen de un enfoque integral, el cual es indispensable en cualquier intento de regular un recurso como el agua.

Al revisar el estado de firmas y ratificaciones oficial de la Convención, resulta llamativo que la región que concentra mayores recursos hídricos, y que cuenta con una nutrida práctica convencional como América Latina esté ausente de dicha lista. Una firma de Venezuela (1997) y de Paraguay (1998) son los únicos “logros” después de 17 años de campañas a favor de su ratificación promovidas por organizaciones regionales y entidades no gubernamentales (ONG). Una evaluación crítica de estas últimas se impone, ya que raramente se ha observado un impacto tan limitado en América Latina de una campaña en favor de la ratificación de un instrumento a vocación universal.

En 1994, al aprobarse el anteproyecto de la Convención por parte de la Comisión de Derecho Internacional (CDI) los Estados Miembros de Naciones Unidas conformaron un grupo de trabajo para readecuar el texto y garantizarle una adopción final mediante la resolución A/RES/517229 de la Asamblea General. Fue adoptada en 1997 con 103 votos a favor, 3 en contra (Burundi, China y Turquía) y 27 abstenciones. Por parte de América Latina votaron a favor: Brasil, Chile, Costa Rica, Haití, Honduras, México, Uruguay y Venezuela. Se abstuvieron: Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panamá, Paraguay y Perú. El detalle  del voto indica que Belice, El Salvador, Nicaragua y República Dominicana aparecen entre los “No shows” que sumaron en total 52 Estados (número extremadamente elevado para la práctica en materia de votaciones en la Asamblea General).

La Parte IV de la Convención (reglas en materia de protección del ambiente) puede ser comparada con las reglas enunciadas por la CIJ en el caso de las Plantas de Celulosa (Argentina c. Uruguay, sentencia de abril del 2010). Resuelto de manera sumamente cuestionable, este caso dio lugar a nuevas tensiones, que analizamos recientemente. De la misma manera, el contenido de la Parte IV deberá ser comparado con las reglas que enuncie la CIJ con ocasión de los dos casos que enfrentan a Costa Rica y Nicaragua: el del dragado del río San Juan, con la demanda interpuesta por Costa Rica en el 2010; y el relacionado con la denominada “trocha fronteriza”, objeto de la demanda interpuesta por Nicaragua en el 2011. Tuvimos de igual forma la posibilidad de analizar en su momento el proyecto minero ubicado en la localidad de Las Crucitas en Costa Rica y sus implicaciones ambientales en un curso de agua internacional desde la perspectiva de la protección de un curso de agua internacional.

El derecho internacional tiende a veces a modernizar de manera más ágil el marco jurídico en comparación con el derecho nacional. Tal es el caso de la Convención de 1997. Por ejemplo, dos Estados Parte a la Convención, España y Portugal, han logrado consolidar, luego de la adopción del Convenio de Albufeira de 1998, una cooperación técnica para el aprovechamiento, gestión y protección de las numerosas cuencas hidrográficas compartidas en una impresionante lista de acuerdos técnicos bilaterales.

Es de esperar que esta entrada en vigor reciente inspire a muchos Estados y los incite a ratificar este instrumento internacional, en particular en América Latina.

Dr. Salman M.A. Salman and Professor Gabriel Eckstein: Concluding Thoughts on the Implications of the Entry into Force of the United Nations Watercourses Convention

Monday, September 1st, 2014

The following post by Dr. Salman M.A. Salman and Professor Gabriel Eckstein offers concluding remarks about the series related to the entering into force of the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention (see links to all of the essays here)Dr. Salman is an academic researcher and consultant on water law and policy, and Editor-in-Chief of Brill Research Perspectives, International Water Law. Until 2009, Dr. Salman served as Lead Council and Water Law Adviser for the World Bank. He can be reached at SalmanMASalman [at] gmail.com. Professor Eckstein is a member of the law faculty at Texas A&M University, directs the International Water Law Project, and edits the International Water Law Project Blog. He can be reached at gabriel [at] internationalwaterlaw.org  or  gabrieleckstein [at] law.tamu.edu.

 

Introduction

The preceding essays discussing and analyzing various perspectives on and interpretations of the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention convey different, and sometimes conflicting, views and perceptions about the various principles set forth in the Convention. Indeed, many of these differences arose in the very early years of the work of the UN International Law Commission (UNILC) on the draft Convention, which began in 1971, and continued throughout to its conclusion in 1994. These differences also dominated the two meetings of the UN Sixth Committee convened as a Working Group of the Whole in 1996 and 1997, as well as the UN General Assembly (UNGA) meeting on May 21, 1997, which finalized and approved the Convention. Thus, the journey of the Convention over the past forty-four years has been quite turbulent and contentious.

Ongoing Debates

As evident in the perspectives from Southern Africa and the Nile Basin, one of the most contentious debates surrounds the relationship between the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization and the obligation against causing significant harm between upper and lower riparians. As evidenced in the essays, this issue remains a focal area of debate notwithstanding the efforts made to clarify the issue during the Sixth Committee and UNGA meetings, and through the interpretations and elaboration of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros and the Pulp Mills cases. A number of lower riparians countries still view the Convention as biased in favor of upper riparians because it subordinates the obligation against causing harm to the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization. Conversely, many upper riparians still believe that the Convention favors lower riparians because of its separate mention of the obligation against causing harm. It is noteworthy that the three countries that voted against the Convention (Burundi, China and Turkey), and many of those that abstained, such as Bolivia, Ethiopia, Mali and Tanzania, are largely upper riparian states. On the other hand, a number of lower riparians, such as Egypt and Pakistan, and those with mixed upper and lower riparian geographies including France and Peru, also abstained, concerned that the Convention favors upstream riparians because it subordinates the no harm rule to the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization. Of all these countries, only France is now a party to the Convention.

Although the SADC countries amended their Protocol on Shared Watercourses in 2000 to make it consistent with the Convention, they tried to maintain parity between the two principles by subjecting each to the other, thus keeping the actual relationship in abeyance and unresolved. The same concerns seem to be a main reason for the South Asia countries’ reluctance to join the Convention.

It is true that the Convention does indeed subordinate the obligation against causing harm to the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization. Yet, this should in no way be taken to indicate a bias in favor of upper riparians. The principle grants each riparian a fair share for utilization, based, at least theoretically, on some objective and widely accepted principles dating back to the Helsinki Rules of 1966. The ICJ, in addition to buttressing and elaborating the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, confirmed in the Gabcikovo case, the perfect equality of all riparian states in the uses of the watercourse, and the exclusion of any preferential privilege of one riparian state in relation to the others. The ICJ noted that modern development of international law has strengthened this principle for non-navigational uses of international watercourses “as evidenced by the adoption of the Convention of 21 May 1997 on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses by the United Nations General Assembly.” The ICJ reconfirmed this elaboration in 2010 in the Pulp Mills case.

The interaction of the Convention with existing agreements seem to be another matter raising the concerns of some states, as noted in the perspectives from South America, North America, Southern Africa, and to some extent Central Asia. Article 3 of the Convention asserts that it does not affect the rights or obligations of watercourse states arising from agreements already in force. Nonetheless, it asks the parties to consider, where necessary, harmonizing such agreements with the basic principles of the Convention. Some riparian states with existing bilateral or regional agreements appear to believe that the harmonization formulation causes those prior agreements to be weakened, if not disregarded. Conversely, riparian states left out of existing local and regional agreements criticize the Convention for not subjecting existing agreements to the Convention’s provisions and failing to mandate inclusion of all riparians in such agreements. Both perspectives misconstrue the Convention. A close reading reveals that the Convention recognizes both the validity of existing agreements as well as the rights of riparian states in a shared watercourse that are not parties to such local and regional agreements. This is the interpretation described in the essay discussing the European perspective, which also acknowledges the complementary nature of a general framework instrument, like the Convention, and more specific bilateral and regional agreements.

A third contentious issue, raised most prominently in the essays presenting the Chinese and South Asian perspectives and suggested in the South American perspective, relates to the Convention’s dispute settlement provisions. While some states, like Pakistan, believe that the provisions are too weak because they do not mandate a binding mechanism, other states, such as China, interpret the fact-finding procedures as compulsory and argue that such an approach interferes with their sovereign right to select their own approach to dispute settlement. Indeed, Article 33 of the Convention offers parties a number of methods for settling disputes. However, the only obligatory process set forth is impartial fact-finding and a requirement to consider the fact-finding report in good faith. Thus, while the Convention provides a basic mechanism for ascertaining the facts of a dispute, it leaves the precise method for resolving disputes to the parties. Given that the Convention is a framework treaty, this is clearly a reasonable approach incorporating both points of views.

A fourth concern regards the Convention’s relevance to groundwater resources. As explained in the essays providing the South Asian and North American perspectives, some countries like Mexico and Pakistan question whether the Convention’s regime should extend to subsurface waters. The unease appears based, in part, on inadequate national information related to border-region aquifers and the extent to which the Convention could fully address groundwater challenges, which often are distinct from those affecting surface waters. The Convention, however, provides mechanisms for developing knowledge about hydraulically related water resources, including obligations to cooperate (Art. 8) and share information (Art. 9), and even to generate new knowledge (Art. 9). Furthermore, it would be illogical to impose the Convention’s regime to water resources whose relations to a transboundary watercourse are still unclear. Nevertheless, as considered in the perspective on the Convention’s implications for groundwater resources, with the advent of the Draft Articles on Transboundary Aquifers, which contain a number of noteworthy groundwater-specific provisions, countries may be justified in raising questions regarding how the Convention addresses subsurface water resources. However, the issue should be couched more in terms of a concern rather than a contentious matter preventing ratification of the Convention.

A New Chapter of International Cooperation

Notwithstanding the regional and subject-specific challenges and concerns, there is a clear consensus that transboundary waters should be managed on the basis of cooperation and the equality of all riparians in the use of shared watercourses. Beyond these basic international law tenets, there are a number of advantages that could accrue to nations that ratify the Convention. Foremost is the comfort and security of knowing that riparian neighbors operate from the same foundational norms.

For example, under the Convention, all riparians – regardless of whether upstream or downstream – must abide by the instrument’s detailed notification procedures before embarking on measures that may affect an international watercourse. The Convention does not bestow a veto right in any riparian, but rather requires interaction and communication in conformity with fundamental norms of international law. As a result, riaprians are prevented from taking unilateral action and encouraged to cooperate through various means, including notification.

The notification procedures can also benefit states to the extent that they offer greater certainty, security and comfort to the various international, regional, and national financial institutions about financing projects affecting international watercourses. Agencies such as regional development banks and state development agencies, which typically lack such procedures, now have a global instrument on which to rely on for project notification and processing.

Ultimately, as suggested in Dr. McCaffrey’s essay, the Convention’s most significant value lies in its status as an authoritative statement of customary international water law and a framework under which more specific bilateral and regional agreements can be established and interpreted. In fact, the UNGA itself used the term “codification” when it referred the task of preparing the draft convention to its legal arm, the UNILC.

Hence, entry into force of the Convention represents a broadening commitment by the international community to manage and utilize transboundary freshwater resources through peaceful and cooperative means. Entry into force is also likely to have a “snow-ball” effect of creating an incentive for other states to join, as happened with other treaties, because few states would want to be left out.

Frontier freshwater resources have long been one of the few transboundary natural resources devoid of a global framework treaty. With the UN Watercourses Convention, freshwater resources no longer carry that distinction. Indeed, a new chapter of international cooperation over these resources has emerged.

Richard Paisley and Taylor Henshaw: The 1997 UN Watercourses Convention from a North American Perspective

Sunday, August 24th, 2014

The following post by Richard Paisley and Taylor Henshaw is the tenth and final essay in the series related to the entering into force of the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention (see links to all of the essays here). Messrs. Paisley and Henshaw are with the Global Transboundary International Waters Governance Initiative at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, which Mr. Paisley directs. Mr. Paisley can be reached at: rpaisley [at] internationalwatersgovernance.com.

Introduction

The nations of North America—Canada, Mexico and the United States (USA)—share a significant number of international drainage basins and transboundary aquifers, comprising 16% of the world’s transboundary river basins. The three countries have entered into various bilateral agreements with their neighbors for the management and allocation of their transboundary waters. However, while each voted in favor of the UN Watercourses Convention (UNWC) when it came before the UN General Assembly, none of them has ratified the instrument. The objective of this essay is to critically consider the absence of these three nations from the roll of the UNWC and to assess whether ratifying and implementing the UNWC would be in the individual and collective best interest of all three countries.

International Freshwater Drainage Basins of North America. Source: UN Watercourses Convention Online Users Guide

Perceptions

The three nations appear to be in no great rush to ratify and implement the UNWC. This may be due to a perception that their international drainage basins are sufficiently managed without the UNWC: long-standing bilateral institutions have been established to deal with various aspects of the conservation and management of international drainage basins in North America.

Prominent among these mechanisms are the International Joint Commission (IJC) between Canada and the USA, and the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) between Mexico and the USA. The history and practice of the IJC and the IBWC provide a rich body of work to review that falls beyond the scope of this essay. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to mention some of the challenges the two commissions face, such as: managing significant risks to water quality and quantity; the linking of border environments to binational trade and associated agreements; new stresses on public health and national economies; changes due to population growth and industrialization; greater demands on shared resources; increasing emphasis on public and indigenous peoples participation in decision-making; greater value placed on non-traditional water uses, such as “in stream” flows; and the imperative to establish ecosystem and active adaptive management approaches to resource management.

In addition, both institutions have experienced recent changes to their constituencies with the increasing influence of environmentalists and economic, social justice, and sustainable development advocates. As a result, ratification and implementation of the UNWC could help make both the IJC and the IBWC more relevant by increasing the focus on, and energy devoted to, the more sustainable conservation and management of transboundary waters and related resources in all three countries.

Substantive Objections

Whether and the extent to which Canada, Mexico and the USA have substantive objections to the UNWC is not well known. This may be because such objections are masked by the fact that all three countries were among, not just the 103 countries who voted in favor of the UNWC, but also the 38 countries to officially sponsor the UNWC.

On reflection, various substantive reasons may exist to explain why all three countries are not overly anxious to ratify and implement the UNWC. Mexico provides a good example. On the one hand, Mexico probably favors the UNWC, in part, because the Convention provides a basis for cooperating over measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution, including from the USA, which is an issue of great sensitivity to Mexicans. On the other hand, groundwater is tremendously important for Mexico where many believe that the conservation and management of shared transboundary aquifers necessitates a different international legal regime to that presented in the UNWC. More specifically, Mexico could be disinclined to ratify and implement the UNWC until more clarity is provided regarding the relationship between the UNWC and the emerging Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers. According to Stephen McCaffrey, such clarity, regrettably, may be a long way off and:

will crucially depend on eliminating both the overlap between the draft and the UN Convention in terms of the physical subject matter they regulate, and the notion of “sovereignty” over shared groundwater, which should have no place in any set of rules governing the use, protection, and management of shared freshwater resources.

Constitutional Politics

At the political level, the ratification and implementation of international treaties has become an increasingly challenging undertaking in all three countries.

In Canada, the negotiation, signing and ratification of international treaties is controlled by the executive branch of the federal government. However, many international treaties, such as the UNWC, deal with matters that fall under the provincial sphere of legislative jurisdiction pursuant to the division of powers in Canada between the federal government, the provincial governments and First Nations (sections 91, 92, 92A and 35 of the Canadian Constitution).  Also, according to Professor Emeritus of Economics and Forestry at the University of British Columbia, Peter Pearse:

A recurrent question in discussions about water management in Canada is “What is the role of the federal government?”  A stranger to these discussions might think, naively, that this is simply a constitutional question.  But even a good constitutional lawyer can not give a crisp answer.  To some extent the question is a political one – “What does the federal government think its role is, at the moment?”  This changes.

As a practical matter this means that ratification and implementation of the UNWC in Canada would likely trigger challenging and hard-nosed fiscal and other negotiations among the federal, provincial and First Nations levels of government. An analogous situation occurred when Canada was asked to ratify and implement the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.

In the USA, the legal situation regarding international treaties is somewhat different, but possibly even more challenging. Under United States constitutional law, an international “treaty” is an agreement that has received the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of the United States Senate and has been ratified by the President (see here). As a practical matter, given the increasing political polarization within the United States Senate, obtaining the consent of two thirds of Senate members for any multilateral treaty, including the UNWC, would be exceedingly challenging.

Mexico is much closer to Canada constitutionally than to the USA as Mexico constitutionally allocates separate and exclusive spheres of authority to the states/provinces and the federal government. International treaties must conform to the Mexican Constitution in order to be valid. However, many international treaties address topics that in Mexico fall within the exclusive authority of the states/provinces. Seemingly, in practical terms this means that Mexico may need to enact domestic legislation to transform international treaty obligations into enforceable domestic law, which could be both time consuming and expensive.

Champions

Another reason why the UNWC has not yet been ratified and implemented in Canada, Mexico and the USA is the paucity of champions at the political level in all three countries. This resonates with Nicolo Machiavelli’s observation:

there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.

Justifying the UNWC in North America

Despite the apparent obstacles noted above, there are at least three compelling reasons why Canada, Mexico and the USA should immediately ratify and implement the UNWC. First, ratification and implementation will send a strong and important message to each other, and to the world community, generally, that sovereign states have important rights and responsibilities when it comes to transboundary freshwater resources.

Second, the fact that Canada and the USA are variously both upstream and downstream of each other and that the USA is upstream of Mexico, will particularly and importantly help dispel any lingering misperception that the UNWC may be biased in favour of downstream or upstream states.

Third, Canadian, Mexican and American support for the Convention could not be more timely given how the world community is currently struggling with the harsh realities of climate change and water scarcity.

Ratifying and implementing the UNWC in North America would also demonstrate a wider acceptance of practice under the Convention as representing customary international law. In turn this could place the UNWC higher on various political agendas and could help lead to a more stable framework for transboundary water cooperation globally.

 

Dr. Maria Querol: The UN Watercourses Convention and South America

Thursday, August 21st, 2014

The following post by Dr. Maria Querol is the ninth in the series of essays related to the entering into force of the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention (see links to all of the essays here). Dr. Querol is an international law consultant with a vast background in international water law. She can be reached at maria.querol [at] gmail.com.

 

Introduction

Although the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention (UNWC) has finally entered into force, not one South American country is among its State Parties. Whilst Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Venezuela voted in favour of its adoption at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru all abstained. Paraguay and Venezuela were the only states from the region to sign the Convention, in 1997 and 1998 respectively. Nevertheless, neither has made any attempt to ratify it.

Many arguments have been presented to justify this flagrant absence, mainly focusing on the concern of South American states regarding challenges to their sovereignty over water resources flowing through their territories. However, this is not the only factor to be considered when analysing the region’s position on this topic.

Multilateral transboundary water treaties of South America

South American states have a history of concluding international treaties to regulate the management of their shared watercourses. This long-standing tradition favors the implementation of specific mechanisms and international water law norms over more general regimes. While most of these agreements are bilateral, there are four exceptions: the 1969 Treaty of the River Plate Basin, the 2010 Guarani Aquifer Agreement, the 1978 Amazon Cooperation Treaty, and the 1995 Agreement constituting the Tri-National Commission of the Pilcomayo River Basin.

International Basins of South AmericaThe Plate Basin Treaty entered into force for Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay on 14 August 1970.  It operates as an umbrella for other more specific agreements, both bilateral and multilateral, that have been concluded with regard to particular transboundary watercourses within the basin. Article VI of this agreement foresees the possibility that its Contracting Parties may conclude specific, partial, bilateral, or multilateral agreements designed to develop the basin. Accordingly, the Guarani Aquifer Agreement was concluded within the framework of the Plate Basin Treaty. Thus, the basin is regulated with an intergrated approach, both from a general and a more specific standpoint.

Transboundary watercourses are regarded in the region as shared natural resources. This view was particulary emphasized by both Argentina and Uruguay in the 1975 River Uruguay Statute and reaffirmed in 2010 in the Pulp Mills case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In this regard, Argentina argued in its memorial to the Court that “[t]he shared nature of the River Uruguay is also apparent from the fact that obligations are imposed on Argentina and Uruguay at an international level. The 1975 River Uruguay Statute is actually a repository for th[ose] international obligations”. Those obligations comprise the rules of no significant harm, equitable and reasonable use, and prior notification. It is important to bear in mind that these general norms are only applicable to the use and protection of shared natural resources as long as the states sharing the resource have not implemented a more specific conventional regime. Accordingly, Argentina also declared that while the River Uruguay Statute had been concluded 22 years before the UNWC was adopted by the UNGA, “the Statute provides for the establishment of a system of co-operation which is far more rigorous than that laid down by the Convention.”

The Amazon Cooperation Treaty was adopted by Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú, Suriname and Venenzuela to promote equitable and mutually beneficial results in the Amazon territories under their respective jurisdictions. It entered into force on 12 August 1980. The no harm rule and the reasonable and equitable principle are enshrined in Article I of the agreement. The no harm rule is also implicit in Article XVI as it stipulates that the decisions and commitments adopted by the State Parties to the treaty shall not be to the detriment of projects and undertakings executed within their natural territories, in accordance with international law. In addition, Article V prescribes the rational utilization of the water resources of the Amazon System. Periodic exchange of information among all the State Parties is also provided for in Articles I, VII and XI.

By virtue of an amendment to Article XXII of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty, the Organization of the Treaty of Amazon Cooperation was created with the view of further strengthening and ensuring the more effective implementation of the goals of the Treaty. The existence of an international legal entity directly regulated by public international law no doubt facilitates the realization of projects and can provide guidance for the rational utilization and sustainable management of shared water resources in the Amazon region.

Although the Amazon Cooperation Treaty does not prescribe a dispute resolution mechanism, State Parties can agree to submit their disputes to an arbitral tribunal or a permanent judicial organ such as the ICJ. They can also resort to a political dispute resolution method such as mediation or good offices. In any case, states are always bound by the customary obligation to negotiate a solution to their disputes in good faith.

Transboundary water management in South America

Unlike the practice in other regions of the world, discussions over shared water resources in South America, more often than not, take place under a cordial atmosphere. Although information exchange among states does take place in the region, the necessary data may be scattered around in different institutions, in which case its collection can prove quite burdensome. With reference to dispute resolution, South American states have been resolving their issues through direct negotiations and in some cases, as between Argentina and Uruguay, through the ICJ. Whilst progress has been made in terms of cooperation and knowledge over the management of shared surface water resources, this is not the case with regards to all shared groundwater. A first step forward has indeed been taken with regards to the Guarani Aquifer. But, further in-depth knowledge is necessary to provide a more complete scenario of all the possible consequences of human action related to transboundary groundwater resources.

Currently, South American states do not appear to have an immediate interest in a universal framework treaty to regulate the management of their transboundary water resources. Rather, they would prefer to continue resorting to their existing bilateral and multilateral agreements and to applicable customary norms in the absence of such treaties. They even count on international organizations to help implement their preferred management regime in the case of the Amazon Basin, and through a framework agreement for the Plate Basin.

This does not mean that the UNWC will have no value to South America. To the extent that the Convention codifies general international rules, its norms are binding on all states of the international community, including those of South America. In addition, the entry into force of the UNWC might foster the development of new customary norms in areas not yet covered by the existing regional treaties and could prove very influential in the interpretation of those particular treaties.