162
10 The Resilience of Transboundary Water Governance …
problems of implementation and compliance” (Tanzi and Contartese 2015). In conclusion: UNECE water law provides parties with a full menu of soft and proper legal
mechanisms to avoid and/or resolve transboundary water conflicts.
10.5.3.3 Multilateral Basin Treaties
The Elbe Convention and the Oder Convention do not contain dispute settlement
clauses. This obvious shortcoming may be due to the fact that, formally speaking,
both conventions are concerned with the establishment and operation of river basin
organisations. Moreover, the Elbe Convention is essentially a bilateral Czech-German
treaty, while the Oder Convention mainly concerns Germany and Poland only, thus,
the parties may address their differences in relation to the two conventions through
established bilateral cooperation mechanisms. The Agreement on the Meuse goes
further only slightly. In case of differences, parties are merely called upon to seek a
solution by way of negotiation or any other acceptable means of dispute settlement
(Art. 8.).
The Danube Convention provides for the usual dispute settlement mechanisms. As
a first step, parties must strive to resolve their differences by way of negotiations or any
other means acceptable to the parties to the dispute. The International Commission
for the Protection of the River Danube may be invited to assist “if appropriate” (Art.
24.1.). If no solution is found by the parties within 12 months after the notification
of the issue to the ICPDR, the issue must be submitted for a final and legally binding
decision to the International Court of Justice or an arbitral tribunal. Parties have
the option to choose either means of compulsory jurisdiction. Importantly, however,
if a party fails to commit itself to any mechanism, it will be considered as having
accepted arbitration (Art. 24.2.). The Rhine Convention follows a similar regulatory
pattern, except that the default mandatory avenue of dispute settlement is arbitration
(Art. 16.).
The most extensive system of dispute settlement is contained in the Sava Framework Agreement that is modelled closely on the relevant chapter of the UN Watercourses Convention. Accordingly, parties must first settle their dispute through negotiation. If this fails to produce an acceptable outcome, they may jointly invite a third
party to provide good offices, mediation or conciliation. They may equally refer the
issue to arbitration or the International Court of Justice. If they cannot, within six
months, solve the issue through third-party involvement, any riparian state can trigger a mandatory fact-finding mission by a committee composed of three independent
experts (Art. 22.). While participation in the fact-finding procedure is mandatory, the
report of the committee has no binding force (Art. 24.). Importantly, as the Sava is
a sub-basin of the Danube, Sava basin states are also parties to the Danube Convention. Hence, with regards to their Sava-related disputes that are also covered by the
Danube Convention (practically for all matters except navigation) so they can rely
on both mandatory mechanisms: fact-finding and compulsory arbitration.
10 The Resilience of Transboundary Water Governance …
problems of implementation and compliance” (Tanzi and Contartese 2015). In conclusion: UNECE water law provides parties with a full menu of soft and proper legal
mechanisms to avoid and/or resolve transboundary water conflicts.
10.5.3.3 Multilateral Basin Treaties
The Elbe Convention and the Oder Convention do not contain dispute settlement
clauses. This obvious shortcoming may be due to the fact that, formally speaking,
both conventions are concerned with the establishment and operation of river basin
organisations. Moreover, the Elbe Convention is essentially a bilateral Czech-German
treaty, while the Oder Convention mainly concerns Germany and Poland only, thus,
the parties may address their differences in relation to the two conventions through
established bilateral cooperation mechanisms. The Agreement on the Meuse goes
further only slightly. In case of differences, parties are merely called upon to seek a
solution by way of negotiation or any other acceptable means of dispute settlement
(Art. 8.).
The Danube Convention provides for the usual dispute settlement mechanisms. As
a first step, parties must strive to resolve their differences by way of negotiations or any
other means acceptable to the parties to the dispute. The International Commission
for the Protection of the River Danube may be invited to assist “if appropriate” (Art.
24.1.). If no solution is found by the parties within 12 months after the notification
of the issue to the ICPDR, the issue must be submitted for a final and legally binding
decision to the International Court of Justice or an arbitral tribunal. Parties have
the option to choose either means of compulsory jurisdiction. Importantly, however,
if a party fails to commit itself to any mechanism, it will be considered as having
accepted arbitration (Art. 24.2.). The Rhine Convention follows a similar regulatory
pattern, except that the default mandatory avenue of dispute settlement is arbitration
(Art. 16.).
The most extensive system of dispute settlement is contained in the Sava Framework Agreement that is modelled closely on the relevant chapter of the UN Watercourses Convention. Accordingly, parties must first settle their dispute through negotiation. If this fails to produce an acceptable outcome, they may jointly invite a third
party to provide good offices, mediation or conciliation. They may equally refer the
issue to arbitration or the International Court of Justice. If they cannot, within six
months, solve the issue through third-party involvement, any riparian state can trigger a mandatory fact-finding mission by a committee composed of three independent
experts (Art. 22.). While participation in the fact-finding procedure is mandatory, the
report of the committee has no binding force (Art. 24.). Importantly, as the Sava is
a sub-basin of the Danube, Sava basin states are also parties to the Danube Convention. Hence, with regards to their Sava-related disputes that are also covered by the
Danube Convention (practically for all matters except navigation) so they can rely
on both mandatory mechanisms: fact-finding and compulsory arbitration.