170
cation and consultation. The dispute between to two countries escalated with public
protests by Argentinian citizens blockading a bridge across the river connecting the
two countries. One of the two pulp mills was canceled. In its 2010 ruling in the case
of Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), the ICJ declared that
Uruguay has not notified the Commission established under the Statute to monitor
the river. In addition, the Court ruled that general international law requires an environmental impact assessment when there is a risk that an industrial project may
cause a significant adverse impact in a transboundary context (McIntyre 2011).
However, the Court concluded that Uruguay had appropriately studied pollution
issues, that they were not sufficient to violate the Statute between the two countries,
and the second pulp mill could continue to operate.
6.3.3 Interlinkages to Energy and Food
Neither the ECE Water Convention nor the UN Watercourses Convention explicitly
mentions energy or food.
However, international water law and various bilateral and multilateral water
agreements aim to balance the uses of international water resources between different States and different interests such as hydropower production and irrigation for
agriculture. As a result, the FEW-ecosystem nexus has been one of the main areas
of focus within the ECE Water Convention regime for many years.
The UN Watercourses Convention provides a non-exhaustive list of factors relevant to the application of the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization. These
factors encapsulate many interests related to the nexus approach, such as the social
and economic needs of watercourse States, the population dependent on the watercourse, the existing and potential uses of the water, as well as the availability of
alternatives to a planned or existing use.
In determining what constitutes a reasonable and equitable use between States
sharing an international watercourse, all relevant factors must be considered. For
example, the production of hydropower might endanger agricultural uses relevant to
the social and economic needs of other watercourse States, and alternative energy
sources may be viable.
The UN Watercourses Convention does not provide for any specific order of
priority between different uses of international waters. However, conflict between
different water uses must be resolved with particular regard being given to the
requirements of vital human needs (Article 10). Vital human needs include drinking
water and water for food production (ILC 1994).
The no-harm rule requires that States take all appropriate measures to prevent
causing significant harm such as pollution or thermal consequences from energy
production to other watercourse States (ILC 1994). This rule must be applied in
tandem with the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization and requires diligence on the part of a State to conduct itself in a way that is generally considered
appropriate and proportional, taking into account the case-specific risks of transA. Belinskij et al.
cation and consultation. The dispute between to two countries escalated with public
protests by Argentinian citizens blockading a bridge across the river connecting the
two countries. One of the two pulp mills was canceled. In its 2010 ruling in the case
of Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), the ICJ declared that
Uruguay has not notified the Commission established under the Statute to monitor
the river. In addition, the Court ruled that general international law requires an environmental impact assessment when there is a risk that an industrial project may
cause a significant adverse impact in a transboundary context (McIntyre 2011).
However, the Court concluded that Uruguay had appropriately studied pollution
issues, that they were not sufficient to violate the Statute between the two countries,
and the second pulp mill could continue to operate.
6.3.3 Interlinkages to Energy and Food
Neither the ECE Water Convention nor the UN Watercourses Convention explicitly
mentions energy or food.
However, international water law and various bilateral and multilateral water
agreements aim to balance the uses of international water resources between different States and different interests such as hydropower production and irrigation for
agriculture. As a result, the FEW-ecosystem nexus has been one of the main areas
of focus within the ECE Water Convention regime for many years.
The UN Watercourses Convention provides a non-exhaustive list of factors relevant to the application of the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization. These
factors encapsulate many interests related to the nexus approach, such as the social
and economic needs of watercourse States, the population dependent on the watercourse, the existing and potential uses of the water, as well as the availability of
alternatives to a planned or existing use.
In determining what constitutes a reasonable and equitable use between States
sharing an international watercourse, all relevant factors must be considered. For
example, the production of hydropower might endanger agricultural uses relevant to
the social and economic needs of other watercourse States, and alternative energy
sources may be viable.
The UN Watercourses Convention does not provide for any specific order of
priority between different uses of international waters. However, conflict between
different water uses must be resolved with particular regard being given to the
requirements of vital human needs (Article 10). Vital human needs include drinking
water and water for food production (ILC 1994).
The no-harm rule requires that States take all appropriate measures to prevent
causing significant harm such as pollution or thermal consequences from energy
production to other watercourse States (ILC 1994). This rule must be applied in
tandem with the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization and requires diligence on the part of a State to conduct itself in a way that is generally considered
appropriate and proportional, taking into account the case-specific risks of transA. Belinskij et al.