Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:18:18.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IMPLICATIONS OF THE INDUS WATER KISHENGANGA ARBITRATION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF WATERCOURSES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2015

Jasmine Moussa Open the ORCID record for Jasmine Moussa [Opens in a new window]
Jasmine Moussa*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Law, American University in Cairo, jasmine.moussa@aucegypt.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On 19 February 2013, a Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)-administered Court of Arbitration issued a Partial Award on the dispute between Pakistan and India regarding the use of the waters of the Kishenganga/Neelum, a tributary of the Indus system of rivers. This article examines the tribunal's decision, which was mainly limited to interpreting the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT), and its contribution to international environmental law and the law of non-navigational uses of international watercourses. After briefly discussing the dispute's factual context and procedural history, the article critiques the tribunal's methodology, which was based on an inconsistent application of the principles of treaty interpretation. The Award's contribution is therefore mixed: despite its almost complete disregard for the principle of ‘equality of right’, it has contributed to clarifying the criteria for determining ‘existing uses’ of a watercourse and reaffirmed both the substantive obligation to refrain from causing transboundary harm and the procedural duty to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment under international environmental law.

Keywords

Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitrationinternational environmental lawlaw of non-navigational uses of international watercoursesPermanent Court of Arbitrationriver damming and diversiontreaty interpretationno harm principle
Type
Shorter Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 697 - 715
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Indus Water Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v India) (Partial Award) (Feb 2013) <http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1392> [4]; art IX (5) and Annex G of the Indus Water Treaty (India, Pakistan and the World Bank) (signed 19 September 1960, entered into force (retrospectively) 1 April 1960) 419 UNTS 126. See also Andreeva, Y, Brunetti, M and Lemenez, G, ‘International Courts’ (2012) 46(1) IntlLaw 129, 139Google Scholar; Indus Water Kishenganga Arbitration (Order on Interim Measures) (Sept 2011) [4].

2 Pakistan's Request for Arbitration, [6]; Partial Award (n 1) [126]–[127], [155].

3 Indus Water Kishenganga Arbitration (Final Award) (Dec 2013) [115].

4 See ‘Award of the Court of Arbitration at The Hague on Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Project’ Ministry of External Affairs, Media Centre (18 February 2013) http://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/21192/Award+of+the+Court+of+Arbitration+at+the+Hague+on+Kishenganga+HydroElectric+Project and ‘Remarks by Syed Tariq Fatemi, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister for Foreign Affairs’ Press Release (20 March 2014), para 14, <http://www.mofa.gov.pk/zahidan/pr-details.php?prID=1829>.

5 Partial Award (n 1) [128], [136]. For a detailed analysis of the dispute's history, see Salman, SMA ‘Mediation of International Water Disputes’ in de Chazournes, L Boisson, Leb, C and Tignino, M (eds), International Law and Freshwater (2013) 369–78Google Scholar; U Alam ‘India and Pakistan's Truculent Cooperation: Can it Continue?’ in ibid, 406–40.

6 Partial Award (n 1) [157].

7 Order on Interim Measures (n 1) [115], [141]–[147], [152]; Partial Award (n 1) [128], [131]–[32].

8 IWT (n 1), Annex D para 15 (iii).

9 Partial Award (n 1) [148]–[154].

10 ibid [155].

11 ibid [160].

12 ibid [29]–[30], [52]. For a detailed analysis, see Andreeva, Brunetti and Lemenez (n 1).

13 See Andreeva, Brunetti and Lemenez (n 1) 139.

14 Partial Award (n 1) note 739.

15 Order on Interim Measures (n 1) [131].

16 ibid [130].

17 ibid [75]–[78], [86], [138]–[39].

18 In a number of recent decisions, the ICJ stated that it may only indicate provisional measures when it is satisfied that the rights claimed by the party requesting the measures ‘are at least plausible’. This has been interpreted by some scholars to mean that the party requesting provisional measures must establish prima facie success on the merits. See Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) (Provisional Measures), Order of 18 July 2011, [2011] ICJ Rep 537, 545 [33]; Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) (Provisional Measures), Order of 8 March 2011, [2011] ICJ Rep 6, 18 [53]; Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) (Provisional Measures) [2009] ICJ Rep 139, 151; see Tanaka, Y, ‘A New Phase of the Temple of Preah Vihear Dispute before the International Court of Justice: Reflections on the Indication of Provisional Measures of 18 July 2011’ (2012) 11(1) ChineseJIL 191, 220–2Google Scholar; Dugard (sep op) Costa Rica v Nicaragua (Provisional Measures) [3]–[4].

19 IWT, Annex G para 28(b). This is also in line with earlier jurisprudence of the ICJ, including Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Provisional Measures Order of 13 July 2006) [2006] ICJ Reps 113, 116–117.

20 Order on Interim Measures (n 1) [140].

21 ibid [148].

22 Partial Award (n 1) [136]; Order on Interim Measures (n 1) [152].

23 Order on Interim Measures [(n 1) 152(1)(c)].

24 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 22 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT).

25 See Territorial Dispute (Libya/Chad) Judgment [1994] ICJ Rep 6, 22; Oil Platforms (Iran v USA), (Preliminary Objections) [1996] ICJ Rep 803, 812; Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia) [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, 1059–64.

26 Fitzmaurice, M, ‘The Practical Working of the Law of Treaties’ in Evans, MD (ed), International Law (4th edn, OUP 2014) 179Google Scholar; Sinclair, I, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd edn, Manchester University Press 1984) 114–15Google Scholar; Jonas, DS and Saunders, TN, ‘The Object and Purpose of a Treaty: Three Interpretive Methods’ (2010) 43 VanderbiltJTransnatlL 565, 577–8Google Scholar; Commentaries to draft art 27 (1966) UNYBILC II, 218, 220–1, [2], [11]–[12].

27 See Fitzmaurice (n 26) 183; Thirlway, H, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989: Part Three’ (1991) 62 BYBIL 44Google Scholar.

28 See Territorial Dispute (Libya/Chad) (n 25) [41], [55]; Case Concerning Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v USA) [1952] ICJ Reps 176, 196, 199.

29 Commentary to draft art 27 (1966) UNYBILC, II, 220–1, [11].

30 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) Judgment [2010] ICJ Reps 14, 73 [204]; see also de Chazournes, L Boisson, Fresh Water in International Law (OUP, 2013), 145CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 See eg Linderfalk, U, ‘The Application of International Legal Norms over Time: The Second Branch of Intertemporal Law’ (2011) 58 NILR 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reisman, WM, ‘The Quest for World Order and Human Dignity in the Twenty-first Century: Constitutive Process and Individual Commitment’ (2010) 351 Hague Recueil 151Google Scholar; Fitzmaurice, M ‘Dynamic (Evolutive) Interpretation of Treaties: Part I (2008) 21 Hague Yearbook of International Law 101Google Scholar; Borgen, CJ, ‘Resolving Treaty Conflicts’ (2005) 37 GeoWashIntlLRev 573Google Scholar; Klabbers, J, ‘Some Problems Regarding the Object and Purpose of Treaties’ (1997) 8 FYBIL 138Google Scholar; McDougal, MS, ‘The International Law Commission's Draft Articles upon Interpretation: Textuality Redivivus’ (1967) 61 AJIL 992CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 See M Koskeniemmi, ‘ILC Study Group on Fragmentation’ (2006) UNYBILC II/2, [2], [3], [6], [23].

33 Higgins, R, ‘Time and the Law: International Perspectives on an Old Problem’ (1997) 46 ICLQ 501, 517CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) Judgment [2003] ICJ Reps 161, [41]; Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicaragua v USA) [1986] ICJ Reps 14, 95, [179]: ‘customary international law continues to exist and to apply, separately from international treaty law’.

34 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) Judgment [1997] ICJ Rep 7, [140]; [112]; See also Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) Advisory Opinion [1971] ICJ Reps 16, 31; Case Concerning Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) Judgment [2009] ICJ Reps 213, 242, [64].

35 Judge Weeramantry defended the evolutionary interpretation of environmental and human rights treaties in his separate opinion in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros whereas Bedjaoui opposed this method. See Weeramantry (sep op), Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (n 34) 114–15; Bedjaoui (sep op) ibid, [5]–[19].

36 See Fitzmaurice (n 31) 113; Arato, J, ‘Subsequent Practice and Evolutive Interpretation: Techniques of Treaty Interpretation over Time and Their Diverse Consequences’ (2010) 9 LPICT 443, 473Google Scholar; Iron Rhine Arbitration (Belgium/The Netherlands) Judgment (2005) 140 ILR 103, [54], [80].

37 Arato (n 36) 471, 472–3. See eg Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR [41].

38 Iron Rhine Arbitration (n 36) [49], [83]–[84].

39 ibid [91]. See Arato (n 36) 472–4.

40 Proponents of purposive interpretation include: Reisman (n 31) 151–61; Higgins (n 33) 515–20; McDougal (n 31) 992; Borgen (n 31) 573, 632–4. Critics of this concept include Fitzmaurice, G, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951–4: Treaty Interpretation and Certain Other Treaty Points’ (1957) 33 BYBIL 208Google Scholar.

41 See Klabbers (n 31) 138.

42 Partial Award (n 1) [177]–[178].

43 ibid [413].

44 ibid [356].

45 ibid [352]–[353].

46 ibid [365]–[366].

47 IWT (n 1) art III(2); Partial Award (n 1) [165].

48 Partial Award (n 1) [168]–[171], [176].

49 ibid [194].

50 ibid [193]–[196].

51 ibid [183]–[186].

52 ibid [186], [197].

53 ibid [197]–[198].

54 ibid [369].

55 ibid [256]–[258].

56 ibid [262].

57 ibid [373].

58 ibid [373], note 578.

59 ibid [374]–[375].

60 ibid [191].

61 Iron Rhine Arbitration (n 36).

62 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (n 34).

63 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (n 30).

64 Partial Award (n 1) [221]–[22], [224].

65 ibid [223].

66 ibid [207]–[209].

67 ibid [227].

68 ibid [383], [385].

69 ibid [378]–[380].

70 ibid [390]–[396].

71 ibid [397]–[398].

72 ibid [229], [232], [236].

73 ibid [240], [425].

74 ibid [246].

75 ibid [243], [438].

76 ibid [402]–[405], [415].

77 ibid [406]–[409], [415].

78 ibid [422]–[423].

79 ibid [424].

80 ibid [426].

81 ibid [428]–[429].

82 ibid [441]–[442].

83 ibid [433]–[437].

84 ibid [413].

85 See Klabbers (n 32) 138; Damme, Van, Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body (OUP 2009), 266CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 Partial Award (n 1) [436], [447].

87 ibid [291]–[96], [467].

88 Annex D, para 14 and Annex E, paras 18–19 (incorporated by reference).

89 para 2(a), Annex D, Partial Award [303]–[305], [310]–[312], [326]–[327], [501]–[502].

90 Partial Award [264], [266], [291], [466]–[467].

91 ibid [307]–[309], [331]–[337], [339].

92 ibid [495].

93 ibid [513]–[514], [515].

94 ibid [518]–[521], [522].

95 ibid [517].

96 ibid n 722.

97 Final Award (n 3) [9], [20].

98 ibid [40]–[41].

99 ibid [52].

100 ibid [43]–[48], [67].

101 ibid [55].

102 ibid [18], [67]–[68].

103 ibid [61].

104 ibid [87].

105 ibid [99]–[100], [104], [105].

106 ibid [112].

107 ibid [43] and [114]–[116].

108 See Diversion of Water from the Meuse (Netherlands v Belgium) (Merits) PCIJ Rep Series A/B No 70; Lake Lanoux Arbitration (France v Spain) Arbitral Tribunal (1957) 24 ILR 101; Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (n 34); Pulp Mills (n 30).

109 See S McCaffrey, Second Report on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (1986) UNYBILC II(2) 111–23; S Schwebel, Second Report on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (1980) UNYBILC II(1), 172; Al-Khasawneh, A ‘Do Judicial Decisions Settle Water-Related Disputes?’ in de Chazournes, Boisson, Leb and Tignino (eds), International Law and Freshwater (2013) 341–59Google Scholar.

110 Al-Khasawneh (n 109) 358.

111 IWT (n 1), Annex G, para 4–5. For a critique of the ICJ's methodological treatment of scientific evidence in the Pulp Mills case, see Al-Khasawneh (n 109); Al-Khasawneh and Simma (diss op), Pulp Mills (n 30) [1]–[7], including the Court's reliance on formalism to sidestep the issue (eg stating that it ‘sees no need’ to arrive at specific conclusions). In contrast, in the recent Whaling decision the ICJ determined an objective standard of review for scientific evidence, heard the examination and cross-examination of scientific experts, then examined and decided on this evidence. See Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand intervening) Judgment (31 March 2014) [61], [62], [67]; J Harrison, ‘Significant International Environmental Law Cases: 2012–14’ (2014) 26 JEL 519, 536, nn 75 and 76; J Harrison, ‘Significant International Environmental Law Cases: 2009–10’ (2010) 22 JEL 499; SE Rolland, ‘Whaling in the Antarctic’ (2014) 108 AJIL 496.

112 UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (adopted and opened for signature on 21 May 1997) (1997) 36 ILM 700.

113 See L Caflisch, ‘The Law of International Watercourses’ in Boisson de Chazournes, Leb and Tignino (n 5) 31.

114 S McCaffrey, ‘The 1997 UN Watercourses Convention: Retrospect and Prospect’ (2008) 21 Pacific McGeorge Global Business and Development Law Journal 165, 170; S McCaffrey, ‘An Overview of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses’ (2000) 20 JLandResources&EnvtlL 57, 69.

115 See S Schwebel, ‘Third Report on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses’ (1982) UNYBILC II(2) 82–3, [73]–[75] [hereinafter ‘Third Report’] analysing Smith (1931) and Brierly, JL, The Law of Nations (6th edn, rev by Waldock, H, Clarendon Press 1963)Google Scholar.

116 See Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers (ILA, Report of the Fifty-Second Conference, Helsinki, 1966) (London 1967) 484. See also Schwebel, ‘Third Report’ 83 [76]; McCaffrey, ‘Fourth Report on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses’ (1988) UNYBILC II(1) 229 [69] [hereinafter ‘Fourth Report’].

117 Partial Award (n 1) [441]–[442].

118 ibid [437].

119 ibid [420].

120 See A Schwabach, ‘Diverting the Danube: The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Dispute and International Freshwater Law’ (2006) 14 BJIL 290, 325–7.

121 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (n 34) [56].

122 Al-Khasawneh (n 109) 349.

123 According to the ICJ in the Interpretation of Peace Treaties Advisory Opinion, ‘the rule of effectiveness, cannot justify the Court in attributing to the provisions … a meaning which … would be contrary to their letter and spirit’ (1950) ICJ Rep 229; see also (1966) UNYBILC II, 219.

124 Partial Award (n 1) [188].

125 Lake Lanoux (n 108) 116–117.

126 ibid 123.

127 Partial Award (n 1) [447], [453]–[455]; Final Award (n 3) [94], [110].

128 McCaffrey, ‘Fourth Report’ (n 116) 241.

129 Partial Award (n 1) [452].

130 16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941, 13 RIAA 1905, 1965.

131 Partial Award (n 1) [447]–[449].

132 ibid [450]–[451].

133 ibid [451]; Final Award (n 3) [112]–[116].

134 Final Award (n 3) [118]–[119].