1 / 23

HH8: LAW & HYDRO-HEGEMONY King’s College London, 24-25 October 2015

HH8: LAW & HYDRO-HEGEMONY King’s College London, 24-25 October 2015. The Making of International Water Law: Evolving Patterns of International Norm Creation Prof Owen McIntyre School of Law University College Cork National University of Ireland. Overview.

robertmatthew
Download Presentation

HH8: LAW & HYDRO-HEGEMONY King’s College London, 24-25 October 2015

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HH8: LAW & HYDRO-HEGEMONYKing’s College London, 24-25 October 2015 The Making of International Water Law: Evolving Patterns of International Norm Creation Prof Owen McIntyre School of Law University College Cork National University of Ireland

  2. Overview • Classical Sources of International Law • Unique Challenges of International Water Law • Complexity, urgency, global, issue boundaries, compliance • Classical Sources of International Law – reconsidered? • Treaties; Custom; Gen Principles; Judicial & Arb Tribunals; Publicists • Innovative Law-making - Beyond Art. 38(1)? • “Soft-Law” Instruments • Technical Complexity: Specialist (law-making) institutions • Multi-Level Governance: transnational regulation; GAL • Procedural Sophistication: inter-State engagement; participative HRs • Fragmentation vs. Integration? • ‘Effectiveness’ of Intl Water Law: (Bodansky; Louka) • Design: appropriate measures; achievable targets; affordable • Implementation: compliance; domestic incorporation;

  3. Sources of International Law: Article 38(1) ICJ Statute • Conventions / Treaties / Agreements • 1997 UN Watercourses Convention; 1992 UNECE Water Convention; 2000 SADC Revised Protocol; Boundary Waters Treaty; ZAMCOM Agreement • Customary International Law: • State Practice: ERU, Prevention, Notification, Co-op • Opinio Juris: • Soft Law: Declarations (Rio), Principles /Codes of Conduct; Recommendations; Codifications • 1966 ILA Helsinki Rules • Secondary Sources: Judicial Opinions, Publicists, General Principles (Equity)

  4. Rel. btn Sources of Intl. Law • Custom • Convention • Soft Law • Custom (Opinio Juris) • Conventions • Custom (Practice)

  5. Theories of Compliance • 1st Party Compliance: voluntary unilateral compliance, political pressure from NGOs, opposition, coalition partners; reciprocity / self-interest • 2nd Party Compliance: bilateral / regional, ‘negotiating in the shadow of the law’ • 3rd Party Compliance: compliance mechanisms, independent dispute settlement, arbitration, judicial fora.

  6. Challenges of Intl. Water Law • Recent rapid development (1970 - 2000) • Not distinct or systematically constructed • Classical sources of international law • Scope and boundaries unclear • Overlaps with intl. human rights law, natural resources law, intl. investment law, intl. trade law • Urgency: inclusive, comprehensive, technical • Framework agreements, principles, institutions • Tech. complexity: dynamic, general principles • Compliance, Enforcement, Dispute-settlement

  7. Classical Sources • Proliferation of bodies: IGOs, NGOs, judicial, technical, etc. elaborate rules • UNEP, MDBs (OP7.50), RBOs, GWP, IHA • Iron Rhine Arbitration, PCA 2005: • ‘considerable debate as to what constitutes “rules” or “principles”; what is “soft law”; and which environmental treaty law or principles have contributed to development of custom’ • However, Art 38(1) remains the only authoritative statement of sources

  8. Classical Sources: Treaties • Highly technical regimes; ˃ 400 treaties - ‘law-making treaties’: gen conduct rules • Non-water treaties: GATT, Art XX(b)&(g); UNCLOS; CBD, UNCCD; Ramsar; etc. • Framework Conventions: key principles, substantive objectives, inst. mechanisms • 1992 UNECE Water Convention; Protocols • 1997 UN Watercourses Convention • 2000 SADC Revised Protocol • 2008 ILC Draft Articles on TB Aquifers

  9. Classical Sources: Treaties • Advantages of “Framework” Approach • Institutionalised co-op: UNECE MoP; WGWH; • Collective means of ensuring compliance: • Allows for technical evolution of regime / flexibility: (Framework Agreement / Protocol / Annex) • Specialist institutional structures: law-making • 1969 VCLT, e.g. Art. 31(3)(c), evolutionary interpretation / systemic integration; Art. 18, respect agreements not yet in force; etc. • Broad participation: consensus negotiation; “package deal” diplomacy; fixed baseline calculation / no trade benefit (1985 Vienna Convention)

  10. Classical Sources: Treaties • Advantages of “Framework” Approach • Broad participation: use of reservations restricted – general structures & guidelines; delicate compromises (but use of “interpretive declarations”) • CBD (190 parties); CITES (171 parties); Basel Convention (170 parties); Vienna Convention (191 parties, Montréal Protocol has 191 parties, London Amendment 185 parties); FCCC (191 parties, the Kyoto Protocol has 173 parties); UNCCD (191 parties); Ramsar Convention (154 parties); UNCLOS (153 parties); MARPOL 73/78 (143 parties to Annex I/II, totaling 97.98 per cent of world shipping tonnage)

  11. Classical Sources: Custom • No treaty, incomplete coverage, vague treaty provisions • Applies generally to all States (persistent objectors, while status of rule is in doubt) • Relatively new field, limited State practice • Reasonably flexible / relaxed approach – significance of seminal instruments: 1966 Helsinki Rules; 1972 Stockholm / 1992 Rio Declaration;

  12. Classical Sources: Custom • ERU (incl. env / eco protection) • Duty of prevention / “no-harm” principle • Linked to sic utere tuo maxim; abuse of rights (abus de droit; rechtsmissbrauch); good neighbourliness (droit international de voisinage; nachbarrecht); territorial sovereignty / sovereign equality • Pulp Mills case (2010): “no-harm” a well-spring of many other rules of IEL, e.g. EIA • Obligation to cooperate re nat. resources

  13. Classical Sources: Custom • Conservation of endangered species of flora and fauna • Duty to protect marine environment • Guiding Principles: precaution, inter-gen equity, polluter pays principle, common but differentiated responsibility, etc. • Procedural Rules (Cooperation): duty to notify, consult, negotiate, transboundary environmental impact assessment (EIA)

  14. Classical Sources: Custom • Regional custom: regional needs and capacities; different rates of progress (e.g. IWL highly developed in S. Africa) • Relationship btn. convention & custom: mutual interdependence, ‘fertilization and mutual pollination’; North Sea Continental Shelf cases (1969).

  15. Classical Sources: General Principles • Universal principles of national law: • Marginal: elements of legal reasoning & private law analogies (equity v. important) • Guiding principles of intl. env. law?: • Beyerlin: ‘twilight norms at bottom of normative hierarchy’; ‘grey area between hard and soft law’; • Sustainable development: Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case (1997)

  16. Classical Sources: General Principles • Equity: ‘considerations of fairness, reasonableness necessary for sensible application of more settled rules of law’ • River Meuse case (1936), Judge Hudson • International Environmental Law (generally): • Equitable and Reasonable Utilisation: UNWC Art 5 • 1978 UNEP Draft Principles on Shared Nat. Res. • ILC 2001 DA 9&10 Prevention of TB Harm from HA • Sus Dev: inter/intra-generational equity (Rio Pr. 3) • Arts. 3(1) & 4(2)(a) UNFCCC; Arts. 1 & 15(7) CBD • 1974 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) case

  17. Classical Sources: Judicial & Arbitral Tribunals • No doctrine of binding precedent, authoritative statement of state / status / application of law; ‘normative accretion’ • Lac Lanous Arbitration [1957]: cooperation • Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case [1997]: sust. dev. • Pulp Mills Case (2010): transboundary EIA • Kishenganga Arbitration (2013): env flows • May only elaborate on legal principles applicable – Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case • ICJ; PCA; ad hoc arbitration; HR Courts; ICSID; NAFTA tribunals; WTO DSB/AB

  18. Classical Sources: Publicists • Impact of individual scholars difficult to quantify • Berber; Bourne Camponera; McCaffrey; Teclaff; etc. • Learned Associations: • Institut de Droit International (IDI) • International Law Institute (ILA) • 1966 Helsinki Rules • Intl Law Comm. Codifications (Chair/Sources) • 1994 Draft Arts. on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses • 2008 Draft Arts on TB Aquifers • 2001 Draft Arts on the Responsibility of States

  19. Law-Making beyond Art. 38(1): “Soft-Law” Instruments • Numerous non-binding principles, rules and standards - “declarative law”: vol. compliance; bi/multilateral negotiations; Rio (Bodansky) • Influencing State practice, generating custom, intl. standards / due diligence, interpreting “hard law” norms (Dupuy) • Solidifying indicators for documentation of opinio juris (Hohmann) • South West Africa Case (Second Phase)(1966) Judge Tanaka: ‘middle way btn. convention and traditional process of custom generation’

  20. Law-Making beyond Art. 38(1):Complexity / Tech. Institutions • UNEP; ILC; UNECE; FAO; WHO; GWP; etc. • WTO / TEC; RBOs (environmental mandate & scientific / technical competence); etc. • Scientific complexity – ‘permanent dialogue’: IPCC; IPBES; etc. – ‘focal points of a broad, legally significant communication process’ • Decision-makers require scientifically credible and independent information re complex relationships between biodiversity, ecosystems services and people (IPBES)

  21. Law-Making beyond Art. 38(1):Multi-Level Governance • Law of co-existence → co-operation • Bilateral → regional → global rules: env / nat res law leading ‘communitarization’ of intl law • Prolific nature of env law, ‘using all normative means’, non-traditional actors, ‘global administrative law’; transnational regulation: • e.g. ISO 26000; industry self-regulation; hybrid private-private / public-private reg; network governance; regulatory IGOs/MDBs • ‘Good governance’ values: legality, rationality, proportionality, transparency/participation, HRs

  22. Law-Making beyond Art. 38(1):Procedural Sophistication • Participative approach informed by Human Rts: affected persons access info, participate in decision-making, access legal recourse • Ogoni case (2001), ACHR read Art. 24 ACHPR to include broad participative rights, incl. ESIA • Awas Tingni Mayagna (Sumo) case (2001), IACHR read Art. 21 ACHR to incl. indigenous participation • Guerra & Others v. Italy (1998), ECHR, read Art. 8 to incl. duty to impart info re risks of major accidents • MDB / IFI Environmental & Social Safeguard Policies (EBRD: EU/UNECE Legal Standards)

  23. Law-Making beyond Art. 38(1):Fragmentation v. Integration • Specialised & autonomous spheres of rules and institutions; treaty congestion; overlapping regimes; risk of inconsistency • Env law ‘pervasive’, penetrating other spheres: WTO/GATT; Human Rights (right to home / life / physical integrity / health / standard of living) • Art. 31(3)(c) VCLT – ‘systemic integration’: • Iron Rhine Arbitration (2005) PCA • Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (2013) PCA

More Related