169
agreement because of environmental concerns, the Slovak Republic decided to proceed independently with a modified project. The IJC ruled that:
“The Court considers that Czechoslovakia, by unilaterally assuming control of a shared
resource, and thereby depriving Hungary of its right to an equitable and reasonable share of
the natural resources of the Danube—with the continuing effects of the diversion of these
waters on the ecology of the riparian area of the Szigetkoz—failed to respect the proportionality which is required by international law.” (ICJ 1997).
6.3.2.2 The No-Harm Rule
According to the no-harm rule, States must take all appropriate measures to prevent
the causing of significant harm to other watercourse States (Article 2 of the ECE
Water Convention and Article 5 of the UN Watercourses Convention). The no-harm
rule provides an obligation of conduct (take all appropriate measures), not an obligation to reach a fixed result. For example, a State may need to take legislative
measures or prevent illegal activities in its territory to fulfill its obligation. The noharm rule requires a level of care expected from a reasonable government and must
be balanced with the degree of risk of transboundary harm (UNECE 2013).
6.3.2.3 Principle of Cooperation
Last but definitely not least, the principle of cooperation aims to enhance cooperation between watercourse States to attain the substantive objectives of the principle
of equitable and reasonable utilization and the no-harm rule. According to the water
conventions, States sharing international waters have to cooperate on the basis of
sovereign equality. In order to cooperate, States need bilateral and multilateral
agreements and joint bodies or other arrangements. In concrete, cooperation may
include joint monitoring and action programs, alarm procedures and the exchange
of information on existing and planned uses.
Both the ECE Water Convention and the UN Watercourses Convention require
cooperation between States that share international water resources and provide
guidance toward for that cooperation (Articles 2 and 9 of the ECE Water Convention
and Articles 7 and 8 of the UN Watercourses Convention). While the UN
Watercourses Convention provides a general obligation to cooperate, the Water
Convention is more detailed and demanding in this respect.
In 2006, Argentina instituted proceeding before the International Court of Justice
against Uruguay for violating a 1975 treaty between the countries concerning the
Uruguay River which constitutes the boundary between the two countries. Under
the Statute of the River Uruguay, the two nations agreed to coordinate with each
other on activities impacting the river. Article 60 of the Statute stated that any
disagreement which could not be resolved through direct negotiations could be
referred to the ICJ. Argentina asserted that Uruguay had unilaterally approved the
building of two pulp mills on the river in 2003 and 2005 without appropriate notifi6 International Governance
agreement because of environmental concerns, the Slovak Republic decided to proceed independently with a modified project. The IJC ruled that:
“The Court considers that Czechoslovakia, by unilaterally assuming control of a shared
resource, and thereby depriving Hungary of its right to an equitable and reasonable share of
the natural resources of the Danube—with the continuing effects of the diversion of these
waters on the ecology of the riparian area of the Szigetkoz—failed to respect the proportionality which is required by international law.” (ICJ 1997).
6.3.2.2 The No-Harm Rule
According to the no-harm rule, States must take all appropriate measures to prevent
the causing of significant harm to other watercourse States (Article 2 of the ECE
Water Convention and Article 5 of the UN Watercourses Convention). The no-harm
rule provides an obligation of conduct (take all appropriate measures), not an obligation to reach a fixed result. For example, a State may need to take legislative
measures or prevent illegal activities in its territory to fulfill its obligation. The noharm rule requires a level of care expected from a reasonable government and must
be balanced with the degree of risk of transboundary harm (UNECE 2013).
6.3.2.3 Principle of Cooperation
Last but definitely not least, the principle of cooperation aims to enhance cooperation between watercourse States to attain the substantive objectives of the principle
of equitable and reasonable utilization and the no-harm rule. According to the water
conventions, States sharing international waters have to cooperate on the basis of
sovereign equality. In order to cooperate, States need bilateral and multilateral
agreements and joint bodies or other arrangements. In concrete, cooperation may
include joint monitoring and action programs, alarm procedures and the exchange
of information on existing and planned uses.
Both the ECE Water Convention and the UN Watercourses Convention require
cooperation between States that share international water resources and provide
guidance toward for that cooperation (Articles 2 and 9 of the ECE Water Convention
and Articles 7 and 8 of the UN Watercourses Convention). While the UN
Watercourses Convention provides a general obligation to cooperate, the Water
Convention is more detailed and demanding in this respect.
In 2006, Argentina instituted proceeding before the International Court of Justice
against Uruguay for violating a 1975 treaty between the countries concerning the
Uruguay River which constitutes the boundary between the two countries. Under
the Statute of the River Uruguay, the two nations agreed to coordinate with each
other on activities impacting the river. Article 60 of the Statute stated that any
disagreement which could not be resolved through direct negotiations could be
referred to the ICJ. Argentina asserted that Uruguay had unilaterally approved the
building of two pulp mills on the river in 2003 and 2005 without appropriate notifi6 International Governance