36
4 Laws of Transboundary Water Governance
water management takes place mainly under regional, basin and bilateral treaties.
12
In fact these latter treaties constitute the true laboratories of the development of
international water law, heavily influencing the evolution of universal water governance as well (Boisson de Chazournes 2013). This is only natural, if one considers
that these regional or sub-regional instruments provide the evident framework to
deal with the geographical, political and sociological particularities of individual
watercourses and their basins. The pivotal role of regional and basin treaties in the
management of co-riparian relations is specifically recognised, on the one hand, by
the UN Watercourses Convention (Art. 3.) that encourages and, on the other hand,
the UNECE Water Convention that even prescribes the adoption of new multilateral
or bilateral water agreements (Art. 9.1.).
The past decades have witnessed important positive trends in the institutionalisation of regional and basin level water governance. Today, according to the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database there are over 250 proper basin or sub-basin
agreements. A recent global survey by Giordano et al. reveals that the relevant treaties
apply to the most significant river basins, accounting for 70% of the world’s transboundary areas (42 million km
2 ) and 80% of the people living in those regions (2.8
billion). The trend of the past 50 years shows that about 30 new treaties are signed
every decade (Giordano et al. 2014). Regional, basin-level and bilateral treaties have
not only evolved in terms of numbers. The purpose and focus of water treaties show
promising improvements too. Water allocation issues—the cornerstone of early water
management agreements—no longer dominate contemporary treaty-making. Water
quality and environmental considerations are now the most common focus area of
water agreements. Procedural rules and mechanisms, including conflict resolution,
have also expanded at the expense of purely regulatory provisions, indicating a shift
towards cooperative water management (Giordano et al. 2014).
Yet, regional and basin treaties offer no panacea to all challenges of transboundary
water governance. In fact, these multi- or bilateral agreements often lack a comprehensive character, covering only selected aspects of river basin management (Boisson
de Chazournes 2013). A large number of transboundary treaties omit basin-specific
issues, either because they are too general in nature or because they apply to all waters
between riparian states without further specifications (Schmeier 2013). Geographical coverage may also be inconsistent. As Giordano et al. underline only around
one-third of multilateral basins have treaties that have at least three signatories, only
11 basins have treaties that include all riparians and only about a quarter of all treaties
cover the entire basin to which they apply (Giordano et al. 2014). Consequently, the
proliferation of regional and sub-regional water treaties do not render universal water
12 For the purposes of this general overview all multilateral and bilateral water treaties whose scope
is below global scale will be treated in this subsection as a homogenous group of legal instruments.
Evidently, such unsophisticated categorisation hides important structural differences among the
regional, basin, sub-basin and bilateral treaties. The crucial differences among multilateral and
bilateral agreements will only be elaborated in the context of European water governance in Part
III. For a general account of multilateral versus bilateral treaty-making see Espey and Towfique
(2004), Zawahri and McLaughlin (2011).
4 Laws of Transboundary Water Governance
water management takes place mainly under regional, basin and bilateral treaties.
12
In fact these latter treaties constitute the true laboratories of the development of
international water law, heavily influencing the evolution of universal water governance as well (Boisson de Chazournes 2013). This is only natural, if one considers
that these regional or sub-regional instruments provide the evident framework to
deal with the geographical, political and sociological particularities of individual
watercourses and their basins. The pivotal role of regional and basin treaties in the
management of co-riparian relations is specifically recognised, on the one hand, by
the UN Watercourses Convention (Art. 3.) that encourages and, on the other hand,
the UNECE Water Convention that even prescribes the adoption of new multilateral
or bilateral water agreements (Art. 9.1.).
The past decades have witnessed important positive trends in the institutionalisation of regional and basin level water governance. Today, according to the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database there are over 250 proper basin or sub-basin
agreements. A recent global survey by Giordano et al. reveals that the relevant treaties
apply to the most significant river basins, accounting for 70% of the world’s transboundary areas (42 million km
2 ) and 80% of the people living in those regions (2.8
billion). The trend of the past 50 years shows that about 30 new treaties are signed
every decade (Giordano et al. 2014). Regional, basin-level and bilateral treaties have
not only evolved in terms of numbers. The purpose and focus of water treaties show
promising improvements too. Water allocation issues—the cornerstone of early water
management agreements—no longer dominate contemporary treaty-making. Water
quality and environmental considerations are now the most common focus area of
water agreements. Procedural rules and mechanisms, including conflict resolution,
have also expanded at the expense of purely regulatory provisions, indicating a shift
towards cooperative water management (Giordano et al. 2014).
Yet, regional and basin treaties offer no panacea to all challenges of transboundary
water governance. In fact, these multi- or bilateral agreements often lack a comprehensive character, covering only selected aspects of river basin management (Boisson
de Chazournes 2013). A large number of transboundary treaties omit basin-specific
issues, either because they are too general in nature or because they apply to all waters
between riparian states without further specifications (Schmeier 2013). Geographical coverage may also be inconsistent. As Giordano et al. underline only around
one-third of multilateral basins have treaties that have at least three signatories, only
11 basins have treaties that include all riparians and only about a quarter of all treaties
cover the entire basin to which they apply (Giordano et al. 2014). Consequently, the
proliferation of regional and sub-regional water treaties do not render universal water
12 For the purposes of this general overview all multilateral and bilateral water treaties whose scope
is below global scale will be treated in this subsection as a homogenous group of legal instruments.
Evidently, such unsophisticated categorisation hides important structural differences among the
regional, basin, sub-basin and bilateral treaties. The crucial differences among multilateral and
bilateral agreements will only be elaborated in the context of European water governance in Part
III. For a general account of multilateral versus bilateral treaty-making see Espey and Towfique
(2004), Zawahri and McLaughlin (2011).