Upreti, Trilochan, International Watercourses Law and Its Application ...

74 / International Watercourses Law and Its Application in South Asia Development and Codification of International Watercourses Law / 75has been abandoned because of salt contamination 142 resultingfrom bad irrigation practices and non-cooperation fromupstream states.Even on the continent of Europe, until the beginning of 19 thcentury there were conflicts and disputes regarding theNavigational and Non-Navigational use of the Danube, Meuse,Seine and Rhine rivers, which were later resolved throughnegotiations and treaty-agreements. 143 Apart from this, the EEChas issued several directives with regard to fresh water and itsutilisation. 144 Until recently, there was conflict betweenHungary and Slovakia over the sharing of waters and itsbenefits from the Danube River and, even after the judgementof ICJ in relation to their case, the problem has yet to be settled.Water conflicts are mostly settled by agreements. The best wayto accommodate the interest of all watercourse states is througha balanced plan and execution of the plan. 145 However, thereare some instances of unilateral action in utilising ‘shared’resources for one’s own sake, ignoring the rights of other142 P. Brown, “Unless We Change Our Ways, the World Face Disaster, AUN Report says” The Guardian, 23 May 2002, p. 3.143 P. Costa, "The Effects of War on the Treaties Establishing the LegalRegime of the Danube" pp. 406-408 ; also see, Menno T.Kamminga,"Who can Clean up the Rhine: The European Communityor The International Rhine Commission?” in R. Zacklin and L.Caflisch (eds), The Legal Regime of International Rivers and Lakes,the Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Pub., 1981, pp. 371-373.144 For example Directives on the approximation of the Laws of theMember States relating to Detergents 1973, the Quality required ofSurfaced Water intended for the Abstraction of Drinking Water in themember state, and the Quality of Bathing Water, 1975 etc.145 D. A. Caponera, "Patterns of Co-operation in International Water Law:Principles and Institutions " (1985) in 25 NRJ, pp. 563-588. Also seeA. E. Utton “In Search of An Integrating Principle for Interstate WaterLaw: Regulation versus the Market Place” (1985) 25 NRJ, pp. 985-1004. Generally regulations (known as a rule) infer the rule ofequitable apportionment whilst the market place (known for beneficialuses) refers to efficient uses of waters.riparian states and to, some extent, ignoring the rules ofcustomary international law. The proposed unilateral diversionof the Jordan River by the Arabs ignored the interest of Israel(an Israeli military attack later destroyed the diversion). Israelcarried out similar unilateral use of the Jordan headwater afterthe 1967 war. The unilateral diversion of the Chicago River bythe United States ignoring Canadian interests is another breachof IWL. Furthermore, unilateral diversion of the Ganges byIndia at Farakka ignoring the interests of the then East Pakistan(Bangladesh) and temporary interruption of the Indus waters byIndia in 1948, are examples of illegal and unilateralinterventions in shared watercourses. 146 Apart from theseextreme cases, there are good examples where the spirit ofcooperation, negotiation and conclusion of an agreement haveprevailed as positive developments in the area of IWC.As Berber suggests, it is a widely recognised fact fromexperience that resolution of the water conflicts cannot alwaysbe through a court of law. 147 The appropriate way, rather, is forstates themselves to resolve the conflicts through directnegotiation and conclusion of an agreement. 148 What is more,the disputes in relation to the allocation and sharing of waterare complex issues, and resolution is only possible when theproper knowledge and expertise are addressed to such technicaland complex issues. 149 Generally, courts lack suchspecialisation. In order to achieve this goal, there are146 C. B. Bourne, "Procedure in the Development of InternationalDrainage Basin: The Duty to Consult and to Negotiate "(1972) in XCYIL, p. 214.147 F. J. Berber, Rivers in International Law, London: Institute of WorldAffairs, 1959, p.50148 Ibid. p. 272.149 Regarding the sharing; allocation, delimiting of the continental shelfand fishing issues, after the decisions of the ICJ, states themselvesresolve their differences on the basis of guidance provided in thejudgements. The Gavicikovo-Nagymaros case is also expected to beresolve along the same lines.