Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of International Water Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nile Water Rights

  • 417 Accesses

Abstract

A fundamental challenge in international water law is reconciling the sovereignty of one state with regard to the use of transboundary water resources within its territory on the one hand, and the territorial integrity of co-riparian states on the other. At its core, this conflict concerns the extent of the restrictions on riparian states regarding the utilization of shared watercourses under international law. This chapter provides an overview of the development and theoretical bases of international water law. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the rules governing the non-navigational uses of transboundary watercourses were still unclear and highly controversial, and the general discourse on the matter was dominated by the two opposing theories of absolute territorial sovereignty and absolute territorial integrity. A balance between these opposing views was eventually found in the theory of limited territorial sovereignty. Current international water law is based on the theories of limited territorial sovereignty and the community of interest, from which the rights and obligations of the riparian states of shared watercourses are derived.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Nussbaum (1950), pp. 7–8; Bruhács (1993), p. 9.

  2. 2.

    McCaffrey (2007), p. 61. The FAO Index of International Water Resources Treaties, Declarations, Acts and Cases contains over 2000 water agreements between states, see FAO (1978, 1984). More recent treaties are contained in the International Freshwater Treaties Database of the Oregon State University, https://transboundarywaters.science.oregonstate.edu/content/international-freshwater-treaties-database (accessed 25 June 2019). The overwhelming majority of these agreements concern surface water; only in recent decades has groundwater become more prominently taken into account in treaty practice and international law, see McCaffrey (2007), p. 484; Brown Weiss (2007), pp. 210–211.

  3. 3.

    See Caponera (2007), p. 215. On the historical development of international water agreements and their regulatory contents, see Brown Weiss (2007), pp. 235–257.

  4. 4.

    McCaffrey (2007), p. 59.

  5. 5.

    See Caflisch (1989), p. 135; Brown Weiss (2007), pp. 235–236.

  6. 6.

    For example, the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and the United States (signed 19 November 1794), CTS 52 (1793–1795), p. 243; Part VII (Navigation des rivières traversant différens Ètats) Acte du Congrès de Vienne, 9 June 1815, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k91227n/f1.image (accessed 25 June 2019); Convention relative to the Free Navigation of the Elbe, 23 June 1821, BFSP 8 (1820–1821), p. 953; Revised Rhine Navigation Act, 17 October 1868, http://www.ccr-zkr.org/13020300-de.html (accessed 25 June 2019); Part XII (Ports, Voies d’eau et Voies ferrées) Traité de Versailles, 28 June 1919, reproduced in Librairie Militaire Berger-Levrault, 1919. For an overview of treaty practice, see Boisson de Chazournes (2005), pp. 14–22.

  7. 7.

    McCaffrey (2007), pp. 63–64; Boisson de Chazournes (2013), p. 25.

  8. 8.

    Caflisch (1989), p. 135.

  9. 9.

    Caflisch (1998), p. 7.

  10. 10.

    Since 1948, almost 300 watercourse agreements have been concluded worldwide, see UNEP (2012), p. 126. Overview of the treaties at Beyerlin and Marauhn (2011), pp. 99–112 and overview of case law ibid., pp. 92–94.

  11. 11.

    ILA, Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers, Report of the Fifty-Second Conference held at Helsinki 1966, 1967, p. 477.

  12. 12.

    In addition to the Helsinki Rules of 1966, its work includes numerous other rules, resolutions, and articles, such as the 2004 Berlin Rules on Water Resources. For an overview of the work of the ILA, see Caponera (2007), p. 200.

  13. 13.

    In Art. V, para. 1 of the Helsinki Rules. See Caponera (2007), p. 201; Nanda and Pring (2013), p. 302.

  14. 14.

    Rieu-Clarke (2013), p. 248; Salman (2007), pp. 630–631.

  15. 15.

    See ILA, Report of the Seventy-First Conference held in Berlin 2004, p. 334.

  16. 16.

    Mager (2015), p. 14.

  17. 17.

    For dissenting opinions within the ILA, see ILA Berlin Conference 2004 – Water Resources Committee Report: Dissenting Opinion, https://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/documents/intldocs/ILA/ILABerlinRulesDissent2004.pdf (accessed 15 June 2019).

  18. 18.

    See also Nanda and Pring (2013), p. 305; Caponera (2007), p. 201.

  19. 19.

    So-called soft law, such as declarations of international organizations and conferences, is not a legal source of international law. It is, however, no less complied with than binding agreements and it may serve as an indicator of legal conviction or point to trends in the development of international law. It can also often be used to interpret traditional legal sources. Nowadays, non-binding instruments are almost as important as the traditional rules of positive law. See Brown Weiss (1999), pp. 1566–1570.

  20. 20.

    Nanda and Pring (2013), p. 300. These soft-law instruments include the Resolution on the Use of International Non-maritime Waters of the Institute of International Law, 11 September 1961, Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 49-II (1961), p. 381; Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, in: Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev. 1, p. 3; Mar del Plata Action Plan, in: Report of the United Nations Water Conference, Mar del Plata, 14–25 March 1977, UN Doc. E/CONF.70/29, p. 3; Draft Principles of Conduct in the Field of the Environment for the Guidance of States in the Conservation and Harmonious Utilization of Natural Resources Shared by Two or More States, 19 May 1978, UN Doc. UNEP/IG12/2; ILA Rules on Water Pollution in an International Drainage Basin, Report of the Sixtieth Conference held at Montreal 1982, p. 535; ILA Seoul Rules on International Groundwaters, Report of the Sixty-Second Conference held at Seoul in 1986; United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992, Chap. 18 “Protection of the Quality and Supply of Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development, Management and Use of Water Resources”, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26, Vol. I, 1992. For an overview of soft-law instruments that contributed significantly to the development of international water law, see Nanda and Pring (2013), pp. 300–305.

  21. 21.

    Boisson de Chazournes (2005), p. 17. See also Beyerlin and Marauhn on treaties between states on shared water resources that focus on environmental problems, Beyerlin and Marauhn (2011), p. 89.

  22. 22.

    Boisson de Chazournes (2013), p. 117.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., p. 120.

  24. 24.

    This is Chap. 18 “Protection of the Quality and Supply of Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development, Management and Use of Water Resources”, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26, Vol. I, 1992.

  25. 25.

    Caponera (2007), p. 186.

  26. 26.

    See McCaffrey (2007), p. 484; Brown Weiss (2007), pp. 210–211. Generally on the state practice in addressing groundwater, see McCaffrey (1991), pp. 55–57.

  27. 27.

    UN GA Res. 2669 (XXV), 8 December 1970.

  28. 28.

    ILC, Draft Articles on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses and commentaries thereto adopted by the Drafting Committee on second reading, YBILC 1994, Vol. II, Pt. 2, p. 89.

  29. 29.

    UN Doc. A/RES/51/869, 21 May 1997, ILM 36 (1997), p. 700.

  30. 30.

    Brown Weiss (2007), p. 184. For a critical discussion of these weaknesses, see ibid., pp. 220–230. On new development trends and challenges in the context of international water law, see Wolfrum and Kirschner (2013), pp. 7–17.

  31. 31.

    See Beyerlin and Marauhn (2011), p. 88.

  32. 32.

    On the theory of absolute territorial sovereignty, see generally McCaffrey (1996), pp. 965–1007; Caflisch (1989), pp. 48–50; Berber (1955), pp. 14–19; ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (2004), pp. 166–167.

  33. 33.

    Harmon stated: “The rules, principles, and precedents of international law impose no duty or obligation upon the United States of denying to its inhabitants the use of the water of that part of the Rio Grande lying entirely within the United States, although such use results in reducing the volume of water in the river below the point where it ceases to be entirely within the United States. […] The fundamental principle of international law is the absolute sovereignty of every nation, as against all others within its own territory.” Digest of Official Opinions of the Attorneys-General of the United States, Vol. 17–25 (1881–1906), 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 1908, p. 274, 281.

  34. 34.

    Convention concerning the Equitable Distribution of the Waters of the Rio Grande for Irrigation Purposes, 21 May 1906, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Treaty Series, No. 455, 1919, p. 3. On this dispute, see McCaffrey (2007), pp. 113–114.

  35. 35.

    For example, with regard to the use of the Euphrates and Tigris, Turkey invoked its absolute sovereignty over those parts of the river in its territory, see Wick (2013), p. 123.

  36. 36.

    For a survey of state practice in this regard, see McCaffrey (2007), pp. 115–121. See also Hafner (1993), p. 116.

  37. 37.

    See Bulto (2009), pp. 303–304; Arsano (2007), pp. 90–91; Caflisch (1989), p. 49.

  38. 38.

    Aide-Mémoire of the Ethiopian Government of 23 September 1957, reproduced in Whiteman (1964), pp. 1011–1012. See ‘Abd al-‘Āl (2010), p. 88.

  39. 39.

    Reproduced in Bulto (2009), p. 304; Azarva (2011), p. 481.

  40. 40.

    See the preamble of the Agreement between the Republic of the Sudan and the United Arab Republic for the Full Utilization of the Nile Waters, 8 November 1959, UNTS, Vol. 453, p. 51.

  41. 41.

    NBI, http://www.nilebasin.org (accessed 15 June 2019).

  42. 42.

    See also Bulto (2009), p. 304.

  43. 43.

    The most widely known decision is probably the arbitration award in the Lake Lanoux case, Lake Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain), 16 November 1957, RIAA XII (1957), p. 281, in the original French. For English translations, see ILR 24 (1957), p. 101 and AJIL 53 (1959), p. 156. English summary of the award in YBILC 1974, Vol. 2, Pt. 2, p. 194. See also Caflisch (1989), pp. 49–50; Caponera (2007), p. 216; Boisson de Chazournes (2005), p. 18; Maḥfūẓ Muḥammad (2009), p. 477.

  44. 44.

    See the historical survey of the views of publicists at McCaffrey (2007), pp. 122–125.

  45. 45.

    Brown Weiss (2007), p. 187; Fitzmaurice (2001), pp. 432–433; Lipper (1967), pp. 22–23; Beyerlin (2000), pp. 54–55; Salman (2007), p. 627; Bulto (2009), p. 304; in the writings of Sudanese commentators for example ‘Alī Ṭāhā (2005), p. 192; in the writings of Egyptian commentators for example Maḥfūẓ Muḥammad (2009), p. 477.

  46. 46.

    McCaffrey (2007), p. 398.

  47. 47.

    See Art. 2, para. 1 Charter of the United Nations.

  48. 48.

    Caponera (2007), p. 216.

  49. 49.

    On the theory of absolute territorial integrity, see generally Caflisch (1989), pp. 51–54; McCaffrey (2007), pp. 126–135; Berber (1955), pp. 14 and 19–20; ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (2004), p. 167.

  50. 50.

    See also Caflisch (1989), p. 54; Caponera (2007), p. 216.

  51. 51.

    Caflisch (1989), pp. 52–54; Bulto (2009), p. 306. See also Caponera (2007), p. 216; Godana (1985), p. 39.

  52. 52.

    For a survey of state practice, see McCaffrey (2007), pp. 127–131.

  53. 53.

    Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada), 16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941, RIAA III 1949, p. 1905.

  54. 54.

    See also Bulto (2009), p. 306; McCaffrey (2007), p. 129.

  55. 55.

    Country Report Egypt, Interregional Meeting of International River Organizations, Dakar, 5–14 May 1981, para. 3, quoted in McIntyre (2007), p. 21. See also Maḥfūẓ Muḥammad (2009), p. 390.

  56. 56.

    For a detailed discussion see Chap. 8.

  57. 57.

    On the views of publicists, see McCaffrey (2007), pp. 131–133; Godana (1985), pp. 38–39.

  58. 58.

    See Caponera (2007), p. 216; Salman (2007), p. 627; Boisson de Chazournes (2005), p. 18; Caflisch (1989), p. 54; Godana (1985), p. 39.

  59. 59.

    McCaffrey (2007), p. 126; Bulto (2009), p. 305.

  60. 60.

    On the theory of limited territorial sovereignty, see generally Caflisch (1989), pp. 55–59; Lipper (1967), pp. 23–38; McCaffrey (2007), pp. 135–147; Berber (1955), pp. 14 and 23–33.

  61. 61.

    McCaffrey (2007), p. 147; Caflisch (1989), p. 55; Lipper (1967), pp. 24–25; Türk (2012), p. 1046; among Egyptian commentators e.g. Maḥfūẓ Muḥammad (2009), p. 477.

  62. 62.

    Caponera (2007), p. 216; ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (2004), p. 167.

  63. 63.

    See Caflisch (1989), p. 55; Berber (1955), pp. 14–15.

  64. 64.

    For an overview of state practice, see McCaffrey (1986), pp. 103–105 and 110–113.

  65. 65.

    The most important decisions include: PCIJ, Case relating to the Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder, Judgment No. 16, 10 September 1929, PCIJ Series A.-No. 23, p. 27; ICJ, The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), Judgment of 9 April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 4; Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada), 16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941, RIAA III 1949, p. 1905; Lake Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain), 16 November 1957, RIAA XII (1957), p. 281; ICJ, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 7. A detailed discussion of the decisions can be found at McCaffrey (1986), pp. 113–122; Lipper (1967), pp. 28–30.

  66. 66.

    For an overview of the views of publicists, see McCaffrey (1986), pp. 127–129. See also Lipper (1967), pp. 35–36; Maḥfūẓ Muḥammad (2009), p. 477.

  67. 67.

    Lake Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain), 16 November 1957, RIAA XII (1957), p. 281, in the original French. For English translations, see ILR 24 (1957) p. 101 and AJIL 53 (1959), p. 156. See also McCaffrey (2007), p. 144.

  68. 68.

    English translation in ILR 24 (1957) p. 129, of the original Lake Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain), 16 November 1957, RIAA XII (1957), p. 308, para. 13: “il existe un principe interdisant à l’Etat d’amont d’altérer les eaux d’un fleuve dans des conditions de nature à nuire gravement à l’Etat d’aval”.

  69. 69.

    Ibid.

  70. 70.

    For a survey of the different views, see Lammers (1984), pp. 563–569; McCaffrey (2007), pp. 145–146; Berber (1955), pp. 27–32.

  71. 71.

    Brown Weiss (2007), p. 194.

  72. 72.

    See Brown Weiss (2013), p. 12. On the theory of the community of interest, see generally Lipper (1967), pp. 38–40.

  73. 73.

    See principally McCaffrey (2007), p. 147.

  74. 74.

    Andrassy (1952), p. 104; see also ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (2004), p. 167.

  75. 75.

    Lipper (1967), p. 38.

  76. 76.

    McCaffrey (2007), pp. 166–168.

  77. 77.

    See for example the survey of views of publicists since Grotius ibid., pp. 156–160.

  78. 78.

    See the survey of state practice ibid., pp. 151–156.

  79. 79.

    See Art. 2, para. 2 Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Region (signed 28 August 1995, entered into force 29 December 1998), reproduced in FAO, 1997, p. 146.

  80. 80.

    See Art. 3, para. 9 of the CFA.

  81. 81.

    For example Lipper (1967), pp. 39–40. The Egyptian-Sudanese Nile Waters Agreement of 1959 is discussed in Chap. 6, Sect. 6.2.8.

  82. 82.

    PCIJ, Case relating to the Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder, Judgment No. 16, 10 September 1929, PCIJ Series A.-No. 23, p. 27. See the discussion of this judgment at McCaffrey (2007), pp. 148–150.

  83. 83.

    PCIJ, Case relating to the Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder, Judgment No. 16, 10 September 1929, PCIJ Series A.-No. 23, p. 27.

  84. 84.

    ICJ, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 56, para. 85.

References

  • ‘Abd al-‘Āl MS (2010) Al-intifā‘ al-munṣif bi-miyāh al-anhār ad-dawlīya ma‘ īšāra ḫāṣa li-ḥāla nahr an-Nīl (The equitable utilization of the water of international rivers with particular reference to the case of the Nile). Cairo (Arabic)

    Google Scholar 

  • ‘Abd al-Wahhāb ĀaS (2004) Miyāh an-Nīl fī s-siyāsa al-miṣrīya (Nile water in Egyptian politics). Markaz ad-Dirāsāt as-Siyāsīya wa-’l-Istrātīǧīya, Cairo (Arabic)

    Google Scholar 

  • ‘Alī Ṭāhā F‘A (2005) Miyāh an-Nīl: As-sīāq at-tārīḫī wa-l-qānūnī (Nile water: the historical and legal context). Markas ‘Abd al-Karīm Mīrġanī aṯ-Ṯaqāfī, Khartoum (Arabic)

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrassy J (1952) Les relations internationales de voisinage. Recueil des Cours 1951. The Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Arsano Y (2007) Ethiopia and the Nile: dilemmas of national and regional hydropolitics. ETH, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Azarva JD (2011) Conflict on the Nile: international watercourse law and the elusive effort to create a transboundary water regime in the Nile Basin. Temple Int Comp Law J 25:457–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Berber FJ (1955) Die Rechtsquellen des internationalen Wassernutzungsrechts. R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyerlin U (2000) Umweltvölkerrecht. C.H. Beck Verlag, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyerlin U, Marauhn T (2011) International environmental law. Hart, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boisson de Chazournes L (2005) Eaux internationales et droit international: vers l’idée de gestion commune. In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Salman S (eds) Les ressources en eau et le droit international. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 3–43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boisson de Chazournes L (2013) Fresh water in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss E (1999) Understanding compliance with international environmental agreements: the Baker’s Dozen Myths. Univ Richmond Law Rev 32:1555–1589

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss E (2007) The evolution of international water law. Recueil des Cours 331. The Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss E (2013) International law for a water-scarce world. The Hague Academy of International Law Monographs, vol 7. The Hague Academy of International Law, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruhács J (1993) The law of non-navigational uses of international watercourses. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulto TS (2009) Between ambivalence and necessity: occlusions on the path towards a basin-wide treaty in the Nile Basin. Colorado J Int Environ Law Policy 20:291–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Caflisch L (1989) Règles générales du droit des cours d’eau internationaux. Recueil des Cours 219. The Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Caflisch L (1998) Regulation of the uses of international watercourses. In: Salman S, Boisson de Chazournes L (eds) International watercourses: enhancing cooperation and managing conflict. Proceedings of a World Bank Seminar. World Bank Technical Paper No. 414. Washington D.C. 1998, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Caponera DA (2007) Principles of water law and administration: national and international, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (1978) Systematic Index of International Water Resources Treaties, Declarations, Acts and Cases by Basin, vol 1. Legislative Study 15. Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (1984) Systematic Index of International Water Resources Treaties, Declarations, Acts and Cases by Basin, vol 2. Legislative Study 34. Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice MA (2001) International protection of the environment. Recueil des Cours 293. The Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Godana BA (1985) Africa’s shared water resources: legal and institutional aspects of the Nile, Niger and Senegal River Systems. F Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner G (1993) The optimum utilization principle and the non-navigational uses of drainage basins. Austrian J Public Int Law 45:113–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammers JG (1984) Pollution of international watercourses: a search for substantive rules and principles of law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipper J (1967) Equitable utilization. In: Garretson AH, Hayton RD, Olmstead CJ (eds) The law of international drainage basins. Oceana Publications, New York, pp 15–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Mager U (2015) International water law – global developments and regional examples. Miscellanea Juridica Heidelbergensia. Jedermann Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Maḥfūẓ Muḥammad M‘A (2009) Ḥuqūq Miṣr fī miyāh an-Nīl fī ḍau’ al-qānūn ad-dawlī li-l-anhār (Egypt’s rights to the Nile water in light of international watercourses law). Asyut (Arabic)

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey SC (1986) Second report on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses. Doc. A/CN.4/399

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey SC (1991) Seventh report on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses. Doc. A/CN.4/436

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey SC (1996) The Harmon Doctrine one hundred years later: buried, not praised. Nat Resour J 36:949–590

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey SC (2007) The law of international watercourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre O (2007) Environmental protection of international watercourses under international law. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Nanda VP, Pring G (2013) International environmental law and policy for the 21st century, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum A (1950) A concise history of the law of nations. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieu-Clarke A (2013) International freshwater law. In: Alam S, Bhuiyan J, Chowdhury T, Techera E (eds) Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law. Routledge, London, pp 243–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Salman SMA (2007) The Helsinki Rules, the UN Watercourses Convention and the Berlin Rules: perspectives on international water law. Water Resour Dev 23:625–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Türk H (2012) Water in the contemporary world. In: Hestermeyer H, König D, Matz-Lück N, Röben V, Seibert-Fohr A, Stoll P, Vöneky S (eds) Coexistence, cooperation and solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 1037–1064

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2012) Global Environment Outlook 5 – environment for the future we want. Valletta

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman M (1964) Digest of International Law, vol 3. U.S. Department of State, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Wick E (2013) Advantages of marketable water rights in the Euphrates and Tigris Basin. In: Kibaroglu A, Kirschner A, Mehring S, Wolfrum R (eds) Water law and cooperation in the Euphrates-Tigris region: a comparative and interdisciplinary approach. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 119–143

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum R, Kirschner A (2013) A survey of challenges and trends in the context of international water law. In: Kibaroglu A, Kirschner A, Mehring S, Wolfrum R (eds) Water law and cooperation in the Euphrates-Tigris region: a comparative and interdisciplinary approach. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 3–19

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), Rome, Italy

    Philine Wehling

Authors
  1. Philine Wehling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wehling, P. (2020). Development of International Water Law. In: Nile Water Rights. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60796-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60796-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-60795-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-60796-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation