There are different international law, doctrines for Trans Boundary Water Resources, such as:
1. Absolute territorial sovereignty theory
2. Absolute territorial integrity theory
3. Theory of limited territorial sovereignty.
4. Water Rights Based on Previous Use or Prior Appropriation
5. Riparian water rights
Although water covers more than two-thirds of the earth's surface, but 97% is in oceans and 2℅ locked in ice-cap and not available to human beings for consumption. Only 1℅ is termed as fresh water (surface & ground water). Therefore, water as a limited resource that is in great demand. The manner in which this demand is satisfied varies according to the jurisdiction in which a water supply is located. In case of trans-water resources, the upstream country has got upper hand to manipulate the river flow. This manipulation can be interpreted under various approaches and doctrines. Each approach has its weaknesses, and jurisdictions will continue experimenting with established legal doctrines to better accommodate the supply and demand of water rights.
Various treaties concluded to decide on the water. Question arose, either there is any such doctrines exists that protecting the ecology?
Most of the early laws, doctrines, treaties, etc. addressed more the needs of countries and humans to have a system to address water needs and uses. Common laws set by Crowns (English, Spanish, etc.) often provided early guidance, but manipulated by various countries, territories, etc. The ecology and instream needs of water was not necessarily well considered or defined, and more likely to address any critical needs such as navigation for public transport. Various instream flow methodoligies have been developed to help identify needs, and as such, may encourage the consideration of these needs when setting or modifying doctrines or rules. Approximately yearly bankfull flows (1-2 year storm) is often needed to maintain channel capacity to avoid vegetation encroachment. The body of information can be quite complex, and variable by country, territory, state, laws, court decisions, etc. Water right and enironmental lawyers and some hydrologists, water and fishery resource agencies may be helpful. I am relatively certain that there is literature explaining the relative benefits and limits to the various doctrines. Rule setting and negotiations between countries are typically political decisions. Interbasin water transfers can have unintended effects, suggesting analysis by a team of reseouce professionals would help consider trade-offs and make informed decisions.
Dear colleague
I spent a nice time in Peshawar and Baluchistan some decades ago. Therefore, I was exposed to some of the issues in sharing the Indus river water with India (e.g. coastal mangrove). Similar issues are known first hand from the river Rhine, Zambezi, Kunene, Orange and the little river less than 100m from my home in Germany. Treaties between countries are conventionally dealing with allocation of water amount and in some cases water quality, but rarely with environmental issues (e.g. biodiversity) or catchment water yield optimization issues.
Who could convene the team of resource experts from your perspective? The UN seems to have have lost its credibility.
Yes Hein Van Gils,
You are right, all water related treaties and convention are about water quantity. We have different examples across the globe, where we have totally destroyed the ecology. For example Amu VC darya, Seer darya (Central Asia), Kabul River, Indus River (Pakistan)' Neil River. Similarly Aral sea and Caspian Sea are various examples. We have to revisit all such treaties for safeguarding the ecology.
All laws/ doctrines were developed by the powerful to satisfy their own greed. UN discredited itself with the 1992 Dublin Statement, declaring water as a commodity. EU water directive follows the same lines. USA has 'John Wayne' law or 'cowboy economics' as Vandana Shiva put it. The 2008 constitution of Ecuador recognized the right of nature and the ecosystems to exist and flourish, just like any living being. It gave water the status of a patrimony, which needs to be preserved for posterity, and that its provision should not be a marketable service. The Bolivian government also passed laws in 2010 and 2012 treating ‘mother earth’ as a subject of public interest. That's the spirit, "that water is the mother of all of us who nurtures us and that it is time we start nurturing her", that should be the basis of any conversation on sharing and caring of any river. NOBODY OWNS WATER, WE ALL ARE USERS. The discussions should involve all users and develop CONSENSUS on how to care for mother-water. I invite you to browse some write-ups in our project on 'water nurturing':
https://www.researchgate.net/project/nurturing-water-adapting-to-water-scarcity-and-excess-caused-by-Climate-Change
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Meta-Analysis