The Nile River Basin witnesses a long history of tension and negotiation among riparian states. There are two legal frameworks govern the Nile Basin. Firstly, the private legal framework reflected in legal history on the Nile. The most legal active period among Nile Basin states was the period between 1890th and 1930th. The legal solutions to the Nile Basin problems came to an end with the end of the colonization in Africa, especially the Nile riparian states. During this period, the tension among liberal states took a different shape. Harmon and Nyerere doctrine were introduced among the riparian states. This led to the refutation of most of the private legal framework from most of the independent states. Thus, riparian states started to explore new legal ground to regulate their relationship. On the other hand, the public legal framework represented in the work of the International Law Association, which started with Helsinki rules in 1966, and the 1997 UN Convention. Many scholars argue that the legal solution is the best one for the Nile question, based on the previous frameworks. However, this note argued that the international legal framework governing the international rivers generally and the Nile specifically cannot offer a solution to the disputes over the water of the Nile. This note discusses both the legal frameworks of the Nile on one hand. On the other hand, it highlights the points of indeterminacy of both frameworks to solve the Nile dilemma. It argues that the solutions of the present and future disputes through legal tools are not enough. This note goes beyond the most proposed recommendation to form a comprehensive treaty as the solution to the riparian problems. It asserts that the law is not a tool to end the states tension, rather than it is a tool to persevere good faith and prevent future dispute. A main role of the extra legal solutions must be played. It based its argument on substantive and formulate dilemma in the previous frameworks.
| Published in | Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science (Volume 2, Issue 5) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.wros.20130205.22 |
| Page(s) | 141-154 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2013. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Nile Basin, Egypt, Ethiopia, Sovereignty, Cooperation, Equitable and Reasonable Utilization, No Harm
| [1] | Preamble of the Treaty Between Ethiopia and Great Britain on the Delimitation of the Frontier between Ethiopia and Sudan, United Nations, Legislative Texts and Treaty Provisions Concerning the Utilization of International Rivers for Other Purposes than Navigation, United Nations Legislative Series (ST/LEG/SER.B/12), United Nations publication, 115,116 |
| [2] | Exchange of Notes Between the United Kingdom and Italy Respecting Concessions for a Barrage at Lake Tsana and a Railway Across Abyssinia From Eritrea To Italian Somaliland, Signed at Rome 14 and 20 December 1925, |
| [3] | International Law Association, Berlin Conference, Water Resources Committee, 71 INT'L L. ASS'N REP. CONF. 334 2004, 362 |
| [4] | Preliminary Report on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, Law of the non-navigational uses of International watercourses, ¶ U.N.Doc. A/CN.4/393 (July 5, 1985) (prepared by Stephen McCaffrey) |
| [5] | First report on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses, Law of the non-navigational uses of International watercourses, ¶ U.N.Doc. A/CN.4/367 and Corr.1 (April 19, 1983) (prepared by J. Evensen), 174/108 |
| [6] | North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark), 1986, I.C.J. 46/47, Judgement |
| [7] | Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom and Northern Ireland V. Republic of Albania ) I.C.J.1949 of (April 9), 22, Judgement |
| [8] | (Gabcikovo – Nagymaros) Project (Hungary/ Slovakia), Judgment, ICJ, 25 September 1997 |
| [9] | Trail Smelter Arbitral Decision (United States v. Canada), 33 A.J.I.L. 182 (1939); 3 Int. Arb. Awards 1905, 1963 (1949). |
| [10] | U.S. Attorney General Harmon, 21 OP. ATT'Y GEN. 274, 281-282 (1898), 274 |
| [11] | Problems of State Succession In Africa: Statement of the Prime Minister of Tanganyika, 11 INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 1169 1962, 1211. |
| [12] | TesfayeTafesse, The Hydropolitical Assessment of the Nile Question: An Ethiopian Perspective, 26 WATER INT’L 1, 2001, |
| [13] | JuttaBrunnee and Stephen Troope, The Changing Nile Basin Regime: Does Law Matter?, 43 HARV. INT’L L.REV. 105, 106. |
| [14] | Sadat to Ethiopia: Leave Nile alone or it’s war, The Gazette Montréal , Saturday June 7, 1980,http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19800607&id=IYkxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=caQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1030,2287901 Last visit 24/12/2011 |
| [15] | TakeleSobokaBulto, Between Ambivalence and Necessity: Occlusions on the Path Towards a Basin Wide Treaty in the Nile Basin, 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 291 2008-2009, 318.[hereinafter Ambivalence and Necessity] See also, |
| [16] | Christina M. Carroll, Past and Future Legal Framework of the Nile River Basin, 12 GEO. INT’L ENVTL. L. REV. 269, 199-2000, 282. |
| [17] | Valerie Knobelsdorf, Note: The Nile Water Agreements: Imposition and Impacts of a Transboundary Legal System, 44 COLUM J. TRANSNATL. L. 634. 635 |
| [18] | DerejeZelekeMekonnen, The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement Negotiations and the Adoption of a Water Security Paradigm: Flight Into Obscurity or a Logical Cul-de-sac? 21EUR. J. INT’L.2, (2010), [hereinafter The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement Negotiations] |
| [19] | DerejeZelekeMekonnen, Between the Scylla of water security and Charybdis of Benefit Sharing: The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement- Failed or Just teetering on the Brink?,GO. J. INT’ L. 3 (2011), |
| [20] | TakeleSobokaBulto, Between Ambivalence and Necessity: Occlusions on the Path Toward A Basin – Wide Treaty in the Nile Basin, 20 COLO. J. INT’L ENVIRL. L. & POL’Y 291, (2008-2009) |
| [21] | JuttaBrunnee. AZIZA MANSUR FAHMI, WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE NILE BASIN: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS, http://www.isgi.cnr.it/stat/pubblicazioni/sustainable/133.pdf last visit 11/10/2011. |
| [22] | Aaron Schwachach, The United Nation Convention on the Law of Non- Navigational uses of International watercourses, Customary International Law and interest of upper riparian states, 33 TEX. INT’ L. J. 257 (1998), 270. |
| [23] | Adams Oloo, The Quest for Cooperation in the Nile Water Conflicts: the Case of Eritrea, 11 AFR. SOC. REV. 95, 2007, 96. |
| [24] | OkothOwiro, The Nile Treaty, State Succession and international Treaty Commitments: A case Study of the Nile Water Treaty, http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_6306-544-1-30.pdflast visit 1/4/2012. |
| [25] | YunanLabibRizk, Adiwan of Contemporary Life, Al Ahram, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/503/chrncls.htmlast visit, 1/4/2012. |
| [26] | P. P. HOWELL AND J. A. ALLAN, THE NILE: SHARING A SCARCE RESOURCES; A HISTORICAL AND TECHNICAL REVIEW OF WATER MANAGEMENT AND OF ECONOMICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES, Cambridge University Press, (1st ed.), (1994), 538. |
| [27] | Econ. & Soc. Commission For Western Asia, Assessment of Legal Aspects of the Management of Shared Water Resources in the ESCWA Region, ¶U.N. Doc. E/ESCW A/ENR/2001/3, (Feb. 22, 2001), 14. |
| [28] | Agreement between the United Arab Republic and the Republic of Sudan for Full Utilization of the Nile Waters, see United Nation Publication supra note 12 at 146. |
| [29] | Salman M. Salman,The New State of South Soudan and the Hydir- Politics of the Nile Basin, 36WATER INT’L154, 159. {hereinafter The New State of South Soudan}.37 |
| [30] | Econ. & Soc. Commission For Western Asia, Assessment of Legal Aspects of the Management of Shared Water Resources in the ESCWA Region, ¶U.N. Doc. E/ESCW A/ENR/2001/3, (Feb. 22, 2001), 14.18. |
| [31] | Yosef Yacob, From UNDUGU to the Nile Basin Initiative, An Ending Exercise in Futility, Ethiopia TECOLAHACOS, http://www.tecolahagos.com/undugu.htm last visit 21 May 2012. |
| [32] | YacobArsano, Ethiopia and the Nile: Dilemmas of National and Regional Hydro politics, (2007), (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Zurich) (on file with author) |
| [33] | Claudia Sadoff and David Grey, Beyond the River: The Benefits of Cooperation on International Rivers, 4 WATER POL’ 389, 2002, 401, |
| [34] | Nile Basin Initiative http://nilebasin.org/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%3Aabout-the-nbi&catid=34%3Anbi-background-facts&Itemid=74&lang=enlast visit 10/3/2012 , . |
| [35] | Samuel Luzi, Mohamed Abdel, MoghnyHamouda, FranziskaSigrist and EvelyneTauchnits, Water Policy Networks in Egypt and Ethiopia, 17 J. ENV.& DEV. 238, 2008, 239. |
| [36] | Abadier M. Ibrahim, The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement: The Beginning of the End of Egyptian Hydro-Political Hegemony,18 MO. ENVTL. L. & POL’Y REV 284, 308 |
| [37] | Egypt and its Historical Rights in Nile Water, Egypt State Information Service, http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/LastPage.aspx?Category_ID=1144 last visit 30/10/2012. |
| [38] | / / MOHAMED SHAWKI ABDEL AEL, EL ANTFA’ EL MONSAF BAMAYAH EL ANHAR EL DAWLAYAH: MA’ EL ASHARAH ELA NAHR EL NILE, Motada el Kanwan El Dawli, 2010, 17. |
| [39] | Kai Wegerich and Oliver Olsson, Later Developers and the Inequality of "equality utilization" and the Harm of "Do no Harm", 35 WATER INT’. 707, 2010, 709. |
| [40] | OkothOwiro, The Nile Treaty, State Succession and international Treaty Commitments: A Case Study of the Nile Water Treaty, http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_6306-544-1-30.pdflast visit 1/4/2012. |
| [41] | Alfred Rubin, The International Legal Effects of Unilateral Declarations, 71 Am. J. Int'l L. 1 1977, 2. 71 Nuclear Test (Astralia v. France), Judgement, ICJ, 20 December, 1974, 267. |
| [42] | Donald J. Chenevert, Application of the Draft Articles The Non- Navigational Uses of International Watercourses to the Water Disputes Involving The Nile River and the Jordan River, 6 EMORY INT’L REV. 459, 1992, 502 |
| [43] | STEPHEN C. MACAFFREY, THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL WATERCOURSES, NON-NAVIGATIONAL USES, Oxford Univeristy Press, (2nded.) (July 2007), 115 |
| [44] | BONAYA GODANA, AFRICA’S SHARED WATER RESOURCES LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF THE NILE, NIGER, AND |
| [45] | Margaret J. Vick, International Water Law and Sovereignty: A Discussion of the ILC Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers, 21 PAC. MCGEORGE GLOBAL BUS. & DEV. L.J. 191 2008, 215. |
| [46] | A.P. Lester, River Pollution in International Law, 57 AM. J. INT’L L 828, 1963, 836. |
| [47] | Salman M. Salman, The Helsinki Rules, the UN Watercourses Convention and the Berlin Rules: Perspectives on International Water Law, 23 WATER RES. DEV. 625 (2007), 627 |
| [48] | Valentina OkaruBisant, Institutional and legal Frameworks for Preventing and Resolving Disputes Concerning the Development and Mangement of Africa’s Shared River Basins, 9 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 331 1998, 352. |
| [49] | Salman M. Salman, The Helsinki Rules, the UN Watercourses Convention and the Berlin Rules: Perspectives on International Water Law, 23 WATER RES. DEV. 625 (2007) at 628 |
| [50] | Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, Chapter II the General Rights of Things, Mentioned in BONAYA GODANA, AFRICA’S SHARED WATER RESOURCES LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF THE NILE, NIGER, AND SENEGAL RIVER SYSTEM, (1985) 137 |
| [51] | Stephan McCaffrey, An Overview of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non- Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, 20 J. LAND RESOURCES & ENVTL. L, 57, 2000, 62 . |
| [52] | Stephan C. McCaffrey, Introduction, Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, United Nation Audiovisual Library of International Law, untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/clnuiw/clnuiw.htmllast visit 10/3/2012. |
| [53] | Stephen McCaffrey, sixth report on the law of the non-navigational uses of international water courses, Special Rapporteur |
APA Style
Shams Al Din Al Hajjaji. (2013). The Long Empty Canyon: A Study of the Old/New Legal Problems of the Nile Basin. Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science, 2(5), 141-154. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20130205.22
ACS Style
Shams Al Din Al Hajjaji. The Long Empty Canyon: A Study of the Old/New Legal Problems of the Nile Basin. J. Water Resour. Ocean Sci. 2013, 2(5), 141-154. doi: 10.11648/j.wros.20130205.22
AMA Style
Shams Al Din Al Hajjaji. The Long Empty Canyon: A Study of the Old/New Legal Problems of the Nile Basin. J Water Resour Ocean Sci. 2013;2(5):141-154. doi: 10.11648/j.wros.20130205.22
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.wros.20130205.22,
author = {Shams Al Din Al Hajjaji},
title = {The Long Empty Canyon: A Study of the Old/New Legal Problems of the Nile Basin},
journal = {Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science},
volume = {2},
number = {5},
pages = {141-154},
doi = {10.11648/j.wros.20130205.22},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20130205.22},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.wros.20130205.22},
abstract = {The Nile River Basin witnesses a long history of tension and negotiation among riparian states. There are two legal frameworks govern the Nile Basin. Firstly, the private legal framework reflected in legal history on the Nile. The most legal active period among Nile Basin states was the period between 1890th and 1930th. The legal solutions to the Nile Basin problems came to an end with the end of the colonization in Africa, especially the Nile riparian states. During this period, the tension among liberal states took a different shape. Harmon and Nyerere doctrine were introduced among the riparian states. This led to the refutation of most of the private legal framework from most of the independent states. Thus, riparian states started to explore new legal ground to regulate their relationship. On the other hand, the public legal framework represented in the work of the International Law Association, which started with Helsinki rules in 1966, and the 1997 UN Convention. Many scholars argue that the legal solution is the best one for the Nile question, based on the previous frameworks. However, this note argued that the international legal framework governing the international rivers generally and the Nile specifically cannot offer a solution to the disputes over the water of the Nile. This note discusses both the legal frameworks of the Nile on one hand. On the other hand, it highlights the points of indeterminacy of both frameworks to solve the Nile dilemma. It argues that the solutions of the present and future disputes through legal tools are not enough. This note goes beyond the most proposed recommendation to form a comprehensive treaty as the solution to the riparian problems. It asserts that the law is not a tool to end the states tension, rather than it is a tool to persevere good faith and prevent future dispute. A main role of the extra legal solutions must be played. It based its argument on substantive and formulate dilemma in the previous frameworks.},
year = {2013}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - The Long Empty Canyon: A Study of the Old/New Legal Problems of the Nile Basin AU - Shams Al Din Al Hajjaji Y1 - 2013/10/30 PY - 2013 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20130205.22 DO - 10.11648/j.wros.20130205.22 T2 - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science JF - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science JO - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science SP - 141 EP - 154 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2328-7993 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20130205.22 AB - The Nile River Basin witnesses a long history of tension and negotiation among riparian states. There are two legal frameworks govern the Nile Basin. Firstly, the private legal framework reflected in legal history on the Nile. The most legal active period among Nile Basin states was the period between 1890th and 1930th. The legal solutions to the Nile Basin problems came to an end with the end of the colonization in Africa, especially the Nile riparian states. During this period, the tension among liberal states took a different shape. Harmon and Nyerere doctrine were introduced among the riparian states. This led to the refutation of most of the private legal framework from most of the independent states. Thus, riparian states started to explore new legal ground to regulate their relationship. On the other hand, the public legal framework represented in the work of the International Law Association, which started with Helsinki rules in 1966, and the 1997 UN Convention. Many scholars argue that the legal solution is the best one for the Nile question, based on the previous frameworks. However, this note argued that the international legal framework governing the international rivers generally and the Nile specifically cannot offer a solution to the disputes over the water of the Nile. This note discusses both the legal frameworks of the Nile on one hand. On the other hand, it highlights the points of indeterminacy of both frameworks to solve the Nile dilemma. It argues that the solutions of the present and future disputes through legal tools are not enough. This note goes beyond the most proposed recommendation to form a comprehensive treaty as the solution to the riparian problems. It asserts that the law is not a tool to end the states tension, rather than it is a tool to persevere good faith and prevent future dispute. A main role of the extra legal solutions must be played. It based its argument on substantive and formulate dilemma in the previous frameworks. VL - 2 IS - 5 ER -
Email: