Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Protection of prior and late developers of transboundary water resources in international treaty practices: a review of 416 international water agreements

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The question of balancing the competing uses of prior and late developers has long been the core issue in international water law (IWL). Yet, how IWL evolves to assure the flexibility and continuing adaptability of its norms in the context of changing circumstances of water use regimes, has not been the subject of comprehensive academic research. Based on an empirical analysis of 459 international water treaties, this research reveals that equal protection of prior use and later use is becoming an emerging trend for international treaty practices, while obligations of “due diligence” emerge to redefine the “no-harm” principle; the growing concern for environmental protection challenges the basic understanding of the concepts of “harm” and “reasonableness”. To strengthen the trend for equal protection and to ensure greater flexibility and adaptability of IWL, this paper focuses on the promotion of institutional water cooperation, the forging of common understanding over the importance of transboundary environmental protection, and the development of more up-to-date global legal frameworks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The authors are willing to share the Database of International Water Agreements (DIWA) and relevant data with all interested researchers.

Notes

  1. For example, in 1959, Egypt and Sudan have divided the total flow between themselves on the basis of their “historic and acquired rights” in the Nile. Prior developers such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Israel and Mexico have all made similar claim based on the “prior appropriation doctrine” in history.

  2. Expression of “Harmon doctrine”, see 21 Opinion Attorney General, pp. 281–283 (1898); quoted in McCaffrey (2007, p. 114). The “Harmon doctrine” was first proposed by US Attorney-General Harmon and supported by many upstream late developers who asserted absolute sovereignty over portions of successive international watercourses situated entirely within their territories.

  3. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (1997).

  4. Article 6 provides a non-exhaustive list of factors which has to be considered and weighed in decide whether a use is equitable and reasonable, existing and potential uses of the watercourse is one factor to be considered. Article 10 provides that no use of a transboundary watercourse has inherent priority, yet special weight is given to the "vital human needs".

  5. Article 20 provides that “Watercourse Sates shall, individually and, where appropriate, jointly, protect and preserve the ecosystems of international watercourses.”

  6. Under Article 2, the Parties are required to "take all appropriate measures to prevent, control and reduce and transboundary impact."

  7. In this respect, the deliberations of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the 2010 Pulp Mills case, the 2015 San Juan River cases and the Kishenganga Arbitration ruled by the Permanent International Court of Arbitration in 2013 have all addressed the substantive and procedural aspects of the due diligence measures.

  8. The “International Freshwater Treaties Database” under the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD), was developed by Oregon State University (https://transboundarywaters.science.oregonstate.edu/content/international-freshwater-treaties-database). It includes International water treaties before 2007.

  9. Except that the potential ‘linkage treaty’ explicitly preserves the contractual freedom of riparian States. In other words, the targeted treaty does not affect the rights and duties of States that became parties to it if it is arising from existing freshwater-related agreements. Neither does the treaty impose a duty on States to adopt future basin-specific treaties compatible with its provisions, where none exist. See for example, Tratado de la Cuenca del Plata (1970), etc.

  10. Please see more details about the DIWA on website: www.diwa-wedb.cn.

  11. This may be attributable to the conclusion of region-wide transboundary water treaty (e.g. UNECE Water Convention for Europe), the establishment of sustainable legal frameworks (e.g. Columbia River Treaty for North America); the growing concern for the water conflict as well as the growing interests in water cooperation in Asia may be the main drive behind the growth of treaties in this region.

  12. For example, the Agreement between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Republic of Niger concerning the equitable sharing in the development, conservation and use of their common water resources (1990), Article 6; Water Charter of the Lake Chad Basin (2011), Article 13, Treaty for reconstruction and development of Indus Water (1960), Article 9, etc. See also Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement between the British and French Governments Respecting the Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hamme (1927) Enclosure.

  13. The Helsinki Rules do not have a binding effect per se because the ILA is a non-official, non-governmental body. However, the Helsinki Rules were widely accepted and quoted by states and scholars, and considered as reflecting customary international law and the scholarly work of ILA has contributed tremendously to the development of international law.

  14. 12 treaties are identified for mentioning “existing and potential use” as a factor in determining EUR, e.g. Revised Protocol on shared watercourses in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) (2000), Article 3; Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework (2010) Part II, Article 4; Agreement on the establishment of the Zambezi Watercourse Commission (2004), Article 13, etc.

  15. Protocol on the meeting of the Turkish-Soviet Joint Commission pertaining to the construction of a joint dam on Arpacay (1963), Article 13&17, the Afghan-Iranian Helmand-River water treaty (1973), Article V; Charter of Waters of the Senegal River (2002), Article 4, etc.

  16. For example, see Protocol on shared water course systems in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Region (1995), Article 4, 6, 7&8; Memorandum of understanding relating to the setting up of a consultative mechanism for the management of the Iullemeden Aquifer System (2009), Article 13, etc.

  17. See Agreement on the protection and sustainable development of the Prespa Park area (2011), Article 3; 中华人民共和国政府和哈萨克斯坦共和国政府关于共同建设霍尔果斯河友谊联合引水枢纽工程的协定(2010), Article 4;中华人民共和国政府和哈萨克斯坦共和国政府跨界河流水质保护协定(2011), Article 3.

  18. See for example, Agreement between Norway and Finland concerning the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the Anarjokka (Inarijoki) River (1957), Article 10, Agreement Between Finland and Sweden Concerning Frontier Waters (1971), Article 3, etc.

  19. There are 21 treaties identified for considering the gravity of harm as the threshold for compensation, e.g. Exchange of notes constituting an agreement on delimitation of the frontier along the thalweg of the Uruguay River in the area of the Basic Garabi Development Project (1983), “Article 7 When causing significant harm to one or more Parties or the environment, the Party who caused the significant harm shall adopt all the necessary measures to eliminate or mitigate such harm.”

  20. See Agreement on the cooperation for the sustainable development of the Mekong River Basin (1995), Article 8.

  21. See Revised Protocol on shared watercourses in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) (2000), Article 10.

  22. See Treaty concerning the regime of the Soviet-Romanian state frontier and final protocol (1949), Article 14.

  23. See Agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America for water supply and flood control in the Souris river basin (1989) Article XI, Exchange of notes constituting an Agreement for the construction of a temporary coffer dam at Niagara (1969), Article 3, Treaty between Canada and the United States of America concerning the diversion of the Niagara River (1950), Article IX.

  24. See Agreement on the cooperation for the sustainable development of the Mekong River Basin (1995), Article 8.

  25. See, for example, Agreement on the cooperation for the sustainable development of the Mekong river basin (1995), Article 8.

  26. A.C.D.I.,1974, vol II, Part 2, doc. A/CN.4/SER. A/A974/Add.1 (Part 2), p.201 Doc. A/5409, par.1080. The Resolution of Dubrovnik provides that, “a State which proposes new works (construction, diversion, etc.) or change of previously existing use of water, which might affect utilization of the water by another State, must first consult with the other State.”

  27. Institut de Droit International. Salzburg Resolution on the Utilisation of Non-maritime International Waters (Except for Navigation) (1961). “[n] o State can undertake works or utilizations of the waters of a watercourse or hydrographic basin which seriously affect the possibility of utilization of the same waters by other States.”

  28. See, for example, Indus Water Treaty (1960), Article 7 (2).

  29. This is the case, for example, in the Convention relating to the Status of the River Gambia signed at Kaolack (1978) Article 4, which stipulates that “no project will be implemented without the prior approval of the contracting States”.

  30. The database has recorded 63 treaties aiming at establishing JWCs since 1858, 21 among these treaties were adopted in the 1990s and 18 more after 2000.

  31. Helsinki Rules, Article 8 (1).

  32. See, for example, Agreement between West Germany, Austria, and Switzerland relating to the withdrawal of water from Lake Constance (1966) Article 3; Agreement Between Finland and Sweden Concerning Frontier Waters (1971) Article 3, The Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community (2000) Article 2; Treaty between the United States and Great Britain relating to Boundary Waters, and Questions arising between the United States and Canada (1909) Article VIII.

  33. Helsinki Rules, Article 5(2).

  34. Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement (2005), Article 5.

  35. Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework (2010), Article 4.

  36. ‘Optimal utilization’ implies “attaining maximum possible benefits for all riparians and achieving the greatest possible satisfaction of all their needs, while minimizing potential detrimental impact”. See UN Watercourses Convention Users’ Guide, pp 107.

  37. Only three treaties were found to take ‘optimal utilization’ as objective. See Revised Protocol on shared watercourses in the southern African development community (SADC) (2000), Article 8, Memorandum of Understanding relating to the setting up of a Consultative Mechanism for the management of the lullemeden Aquifer System (IAS) (2009) Chapter 5, Article 13; Great Lakes – ST. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement (2005), Article 5.

  38. For example, this is the case in the Minute No.318 Adjustment of delivery schedules for water allotted to Mexico for the years 2010 through 2013 as a result of infrastructure damage in irrigation district 014, Rio Colorado, caused by the April 2010 earthquake in the Mexicali Valley, Baja California (2010), Preamble. According to this treaty, “[t] hese cooperative actions are intended to benefit both countries and help them address and adapt to future water supply challenges in the Colorado River Basin, including the potential long-term, adverse impacts of climate change”.

  39. In the Salzburg Resolution (1961), “works or utilizations referred to in the preceding article may not be undertaken except after previous notice to interested States.”

References

  • Birnie, P., & Boyle, A. (2002). International Law and the environment. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boisson De Chazournes, L., & Salman, S. M. A. (1998). International watercourses: enhancing cooperation and managing conflict—Proceedings of a World Bank seminar (English). World Bank technical paper No. WTP 414. World Bank Group.

  • Bourne, C. B. (1965). The right to utilize the waters of international rivers. Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire Canadien De Droit International, 3, 187–264 (p. 199, para. 1).

  • Bourne, C. B. (1972). Procedure in the development of international drainage basins: Notice and exchange of information. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 22(3), 172–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourne, C. B. (1997). International water law. Selected writings of Professor Charles Bourne. Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D. B. (2011). Response to late developers and the inequity of “equitable utilization” and the harm of “do no harm” by Kai Wegerich and Oliver Olsson. Water International, 35 (6), 707–717 (November 2010). Water International, 36(3), 407–409.

  • Bulto, T. S. (2009). Between ambivalence and necessity: Occlusions on the path towards a basin-wide treaty in the Nile Basin. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 20, 291–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caflisch, L. (1989). Règles générales du droit des cours d’eau internationaux. Recueil des Cours 219. The Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague.

  • Caflisch, L. (1998). Regulation of the uses of international watercourses, In: International watercourses: enhancing cooperation and managing conflict. The World Bank.

  • Cascão, A. E. (2009). Changing power relations in the Nile river basin: Unilateralism vs. cooperation? Water Alternatives, 2(2), 245–268.

  • Devlaeminck, D. (2020). Reciprocity and China’s transboundary waters: The law of international watercourses. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giordano, M., Drieschova, A., Duncan, J. A., Sayama, Y., De Stefano, L., & Wolf, A. T. (2014). A review of the evolution and state of transboundary freshwater treaties. International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics, 14(3), 245–264 (p. 247, para. 3, p. 260, para. 2).

  • Hamner J. H., Wolf A. T. (1998), Patterns in international water resource treaties: The transboundary freshwater dispute database. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 1997 Yearbook (pp. 157–177).

  • International Law Commission. (1994). Draft articles on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses and commentaries thereto and resolution on transboundary confined groundwater. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, II, Part Two.

  • Lankford, B. (2013). Does Article 6 (factors relevant to equitable and reasonable utilization) in the UN water courses convention misdirect riparian countries. Water International, 38(2), 130–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlefield, D. R. (2008). Conflict on the Rio Grande: Water and the Law, 1879–1939. University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, S. C. (2007). The law of international watercourses (p. 99, 458). Oxford University Press.

  • McIntyre, O. (2007). The environmental protection of international watercourses under international law. Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, O. (2010). The proceduralisation and growing maturity of international water law: Case concerning pulp mills on the river Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), International Court of Justice, 20 April 2010. Journal of Environmental Law, 22(3), 475–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, O. (2015). Benefit-sharing and upstream/downstream cooperation for ecological protection of transboundary waters: Opportunities for China as an upstream state. Water International, 40(1), 48–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, O. (2020). The current state of development of the no significant harm principle: How far have we come? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 20, 601–618 (p. 601. Abstract, p. 615, para. 1).

  • Mekonnen, D. Z. (2010). The Nile basin cooperative framework agreement negotiations and the adoption of a ‘water security’ paradigm: Flight into obscurity or a logical Cul-de sac? European Journal of International Law, 21(2), 421–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, R. (1995). The law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses: Dilemma for lower Riparians. Fordham International Law Jounral, 19(1), 9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieu-Clarke, A., Moynihan, R., & Bjorn-Oliver, M. (2012). UN watercourses convention user’s guide. UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocha Loures, F., & Rieu-Clarke, A. (2013). The UN watercourses convention in force: Strengthening international law for transboundary water management. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoff, C. W., & Grey, D. (2005). Cooperation on international rivers: A continuum for securing and sharing benefits. Water International, 30(4), 420–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salman, S. M. A., Kishor, U. (2003). Conflict and cooperation on South Asia's international rivers: A legal perspective. World Bank Publications.

  • Salman, S. M. A. (2007). The Helsinki Rules, the UN watercourses convention and the Berlin rules: Perspectives on international water law. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 23(4), 625–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salman, S. M. A. (2008). The Helsinki Rules, the UN Watercourses Convention and the Berlin Rules: Perspectives on International Water Law. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 23(4), 625–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salman, S. M. A. (2010). Downstream riparians can also harm upstream riparians: the concept of foreclosure of future uses. Water International, 35(4), 350–364 (p. 351, para. 5).

  • Shuval, H. I. (2009). Approaches to resolving the water conflicts between Israel and her neighbors—A regional water-for-peace plan. Water International, 17(3), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain, A. (2002). The Nile River basin initiative: Too many cooks, too little broth. SAIS Review, 22(2), 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanzi, A., & Arcari, M. (2001). The United Nations convention on the law of international watercourses. Kluwer Law International.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tanzi, A. (2017). The consolidation of international water law: A comparative analysis of the UN and UNECE water conventions. Editoriale scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanzi, A. M. (2020). The inter-relationship between no harm, equitable and reasonable utilisation and cooperation under international water law. International Environmental Agreements, 20, 619–629 (p. 620, para. 5).

  • Tarlock, D. (2010). Four challenges for international water law. Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 23(2), 369–408 (p. 371, para.1 and 2).

  • Wegerich, K., & Olsson, O. (2010). Late developers and the inequity of “equitable use” and the harm of “do no harm”. Water International, 35(6), 707–717 (p. 709, para. 1, p. 711, para. 2).

  • Wehling, P. (2020). Customary principles of international water law. In Nile water rights. Springer.

  • Wirsing, R., Jasparro, C., & Stoll, D. (2012). International conflict over water resources in Himalayan Asia. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Wouters, P. (1996). An assessment of recent developments in international watercourse law through the prism of the substantive rules governing use allocation. Natural Resources Journal, 36, 417–439 (p. 426, para. 4).

  • Wouters, P. (2014). The Yin and Yang of International Water Law: China’s transboundary water practice and the changing contours of state sovereignty. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 23(1), 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P., Vinogradov, S., Allan, A., Jones, P., & Rieu-Clarke, A. (2005). Sharing transboundary waters—An integrated assessment of equitable entitlement: The legal assessment model. International Hydrological Programme-Technical Documents in Hydrology No. 74. UNESCO.

  • Zeitoun, M. (2015). The relevance of international water law to later-developing upstream states. Water International, 40(7), 949–968 (p. 954, para. 3, p. 960, para. 3).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the help provided by Professor Wolf and his research team in creating Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD) and generously sharing with our team the updated international water treaties after 2007, thanks also to Professor Patricia Wouters, Director of International Water Law Academy (University of Wuhan), for her valuable advice, this research would not be possible without such help.

Funding

This study was funded by the Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (grant number: 18XJCGJW004).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China

    Yue Zhao, Xuefei Xiong, Sicheng Wu & Kaixaing Zhang

Authors
  1. Yue Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xuefei Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sicheng Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kaixaing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaixaing Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This manuscript has not been published or presented elsewhere in part or in entirety and is not under consideration by another journal.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

The authors declare that they have no research involving human participants and/or animals.

Informed consent

The authors declare that all study participants provided informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, Y., Xiong, X., Wu, S. et al. Protection of prior and late developers of transboundary water resources in international treaty practices: a review of 416 international water agreements. Int Environ Agreements 22, 201–228 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-021-09550-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-021-09550-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation