The Helsinki Rules, the UN Watercourses Convention and the Berlin Rules: Perspectives on International Water Law

Salman, Salman M. A.

doi:10.1080/07900620701488562

Cited by 151 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This doctrine has been widely disputed and is currently not recognized in international water law. In fact, international water law such as the 1966 Helsinki Rules and the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention, is based primarily on the principles of "reasonable and equitable utilization" and "no significant harm to other riparians", which stand in sharp contrast to the Harmon Doctrine (Salman, 2007). Nevertheless, the Harmon Doctrine (or equivalently, the principle of Absolute Territorial Sovereignty) is often raised by upstream riparians during water disputes (Wolf, 1999).…”

Section: The Harmon Rulementioning

confidence: 93%

“…Joint with the principle of "reasonable and equitable utilization", it forms the basis of international water law, introduced by the 1966 Helsinki Rules, and incorporated by the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention. We interpret the principle in its extreme form, where it coincides with the notion of Unlimited Territorial Integrity (Salman, 2007). In this interpretation, the principle requires that no harm is done at all.…”

Section: The No-harm Rulementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Composition properties in the river claims problem

Ansink

Weikard

2014

Soc Choice Welf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a river claims problem, agents are ordered linearly, and they have both an initial water endowment as well as a claim to the total water resource. We provide characterizations of two solutions to this problem, using Composition properties which have particularly relevant interpretations for the river claims problem. Specifically, these properties relate to situations where river flow is uncertain or highly variable, possibly due to climate change impacts. The only solution that satisfies all Composition properties is the 'Harmon rule' induced by the Harmon Doctrine, which says that agents are free to use any water available on their territory, without concern for downstream impacts. The other solution that we assess is the 'No-harm rule', an extreme interpretation of the "no-harm" principle from international water law, which implies that water is allocated as far downstream as possible. In addition to characterizing both solutions, we show their relation to priority rules and sequential sharing rules.JEL classification: D63; C71; Q25

show abstract

Section: The Harmon Rulementioning

confidence: 93%

Section: The No-harm Rulementioning

confidence: 99%

Composition properties in the river claims problem

Ansink

Weikard

2014

Soc Choice Welf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A more broadly expressed scope of international water law comprising all waters within a State in addition to international drainage basins can be found in the ILA Berlin Rules (Art. 1), but the extension of the Rules to cover national waters has also been subject to critique from the viewpoint of traditional international water law [25].…”

Section: Principle Of Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also the non-formal ILA Helsinki Rules and ILA Berlin Rules are widely understood to reflect international customary water law, although some experts' approach towards those parts of the ILA Berlin Rules that seek to incorporate the requirements of international environmental and human rights law has been a bit cautious [25,26].…”

Section: Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water-Energy-Food Nexus within the Framework of International Water Law

Belinskij

2015

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International water law, which regulates the uses of international watercourses that are situated partly in different States, is a highly topical sector of law. In 2014, two conventions covering the subject matter entered into force globally. At the same time, a water-food-energy nexus has become part and parcel of the development canon that emphasises the importance of the complex relationship between water, energy and food. In this article, it is discussed whether international water law supports the water-food-energy nexus approach, which aims to reconcile the different water uses in international basins. The analysis also covers the human rights to water and food from the nexus viewpoint. The legal regime of the Mekong River is used as an example of the possibilities and challenges of the nexus approach in international water law. It is concluded that despite its deficiencies international water law provides a very useful platform for the cooperation between States and different sectors that aim at guaranteeing water, food and energy security.

show abstract

“…Two main principles stand out: "reasonable and equitable utilization" and "no significant harm to other riparians", giving (weak and ambiguous) priority to, respectively, upstream and downstream countries. A second argument is to resort to more extreme principles such as Absolute Territorial Sovereignty (ATS, also referred to as the Harmon Doctrine), which says that every country has the right to all river water within its territory, or Unlimited Territorial Integrity (UTI), which says that every country has the right to all river water within and upstream of its territory (Salman, 2007).…”

Section: Property Rights In the Rivermentioning

confidence: 99%