10.3 Cooperation Over Planned Measures
141
also contained a recommendation on the procedure to be followed by the “moving”
state (Art. XXIX.2.4.). Today, there is no ambiguity as to the fact that cooperation over
planned interventions in shared river basins is one of the fundamental principles of
international water law (McCaffrey 2015). Given its centre-stage in transboundary
water conflict prevention the subject is also a standard feature of hydropolitical
assessments.
10.3.2 Cooperation Over Planned Measures in International
Water Law
As mentioned above, prior notification of planned measures is considered today as
one the three core principles of international water law (see Sect. 4.2.2). Its central role is eloquently illustrated by the fact that the UN Watercourses Convention
actually dedicates more articles to the subject than any other topics. The Convention
clearly spells out that riparian states are under a horizontal obligation to exchange
information and consult on the possible effects of a planned intervention on an international watercourse. Should the need arise riparians are also obliged to engage in
negotiations (Art. 11.). This general requirement is broken down to precisely defined
procedural steps. The first step is the “timely” notification of a planned measure that
must take place well before a decision on the permit or implementation is made.
Such notification must contain all the information that enables the affected riparian
state to evaluate the possible effects of the planned project (Art. 12.). The Convention
also sets a basic timeframe—six months—during which the recipient state should
communicate its findings, a period that can be extended by additional six months
(Art. 13.). During this period the state of origin must refrain from permitting or
implementing the project (Art. 14.). If the recipient state considers that the planned
measure contravenes the substantive principles of international water law (i.e. equitable and reasonable utilisation and no-harm), it must substantiate its findings with
the corroborating documentation (Art. 15.). In such a case the parties must enter
into consultations with a view to finding a mutually acceptable solution. During this
time, but no longer than for an additional six months, the state of origin is obliged to
withhold project authorisation or implementation (Art. 17.). If a riparian state finds
out that another riparian aims to go ahead with a planned measure without prior
notification, it can demand the notification documents and the commencement of the
procedure described above. If the state of origin denies the need for prior notification,
the states concerned must enter into consultations. If during that period the recipient
so requests, the state of origin must suspend the project up to six months (Art. 18.). It
must be pointed out that the Convention does not call on the state of origin to conduct
an environmental impact assessment (EIA). It merely provides that the results of an
eventual EIA must be transmitted to all other basin states (McCaffrey 2016). The
International Court of Justice, however, usefully clarified the status of EIAs in its
2010 judgement on the Pulps Mills case, underlining that “it may now be considered
141
also contained a recommendation on the procedure to be followed by the “moving”
state (Art. XXIX.2.4.). Today, there is no ambiguity as to the fact that cooperation over
planned interventions in shared river basins is one of the fundamental principles of
international water law (McCaffrey 2015). Given its centre-stage in transboundary
water conflict prevention the subject is also a standard feature of hydropolitical
assessments.
10.3.2 Cooperation Over Planned Measures in International
Water Law
As mentioned above, prior notification of planned measures is considered today as
one the three core principles of international water law (see Sect. 4.2.2). Its central role is eloquently illustrated by the fact that the UN Watercourses Convention
actually dedicates more articles to the subject than any other topics. The Convention
clearly spells out that riparian states are under a horizontal obligation to exchange
information and consult on the possible effects of a planned intervention on an international watercourse. Should the need arise riparians are also obliged to engage in
negotiations (Art. 11.). This general requirement is broken down to precisely defined
procedural steps. The first step is the “timely” notification of a planned measure that
must take place well before a decision on the permit or implementation is made.
Such notification must contain all the information that enables the affected riparian
state to evaluate the possible effects of the planned project (Art. 12.). The Convention
also sets a basic timeframe—six months—during which the recipient state should
communicate its findings, a period that can be extended by additional six months
(Art. 13.). During this period the state of origin must refrain from permitting or
implementing the project (Art. 14.). If the recipient state considers that the planned
measure contravenes the substantive principles of international water law (i.e. equitable and reasonable utilisation and no-harm), it must substantiate its findings with
the corroborating documentation (Art. 15.). In such a case the parties must enter
into consultations with a view to finding a mutually acceptable solution. During this
time, but no longer than for an additional six months, the state of origin is obliged to
withhold project authorisation or implementation (Art. 17.). If a riparian state finds
out that another riparian aims to go ahead with a planned measure without prior
notification, it can demand the notification documents and the commencement of the
procedure described above. If the state of origin denies the need for prior notification,
the states concerned must enter into consultations. If during that period the recipient
so requests, the state of origin must suspend the project up to six months (Art. 18.). It
must be pointed out that the Convention does not call on the state of origin to conduct
an environmental impact assessment (EIA). It merely provides that the results of an
eventual EIA must be transmitted to all other basin states (McCaffrey 2016). The
International Court of Justice, however, usefully clarified the status of EIAs in its
2010 judgement on the Pulps Mills case, underlining that “it may now be considered