Rivers are international water basins and are not owned by countries.
Literature Review for International River Basins
International Rivers
According to a study carried out by a group of scientist (Wolf et al., 1999), the number of international river basins in the world were identified to be 261, covering 45.3% of the world land area excluding Antarctica. In terms of land area within international basins, Africa has the greatest percentage of all, 62%. Five of the world’s eight rivers that pass through eight or more countries are in Africa (ibid.).
International Legal Perspectives on International River Basins
The Application of Different Theories in International Water Law
The various uses to which the shared waters of international river basins are put create problems of both technical and juridical nature (Godana, 1985). Traditionally, international water law recognizes five main theories (Utton and Teclaff, 1978) that attempt to define and delineate the rights of basin states to use water from a shared river system. These are:
The theory of absolute territorial sovereignty. According to this theory, a state, as ‘master of its territory’, may adopt in regard to watercourse within its national territory all measures deemed suitable to its national interest, irrespective of their effects beyond its borders (Menon, 1975). In other words, a state can do as it pleases and is entitled to do as it chooses with its waters within boundaries ignoring the effects of its actions on neighboring states. Obviously, this theory is favorable to upper basin state. Downstream states have always opposed the absolute territorial sovereignty doctrine, which is never implemented in any water treaty.
The theory of absolute territorial integrity. This theory, which is also known as the theory of natural flow of river, is the direct opposite of that of absolute territorial sovereignty. It espouses the old common law doctrine of water rights whereby a lower riparian (basin state) claims the right to the continued, uninterrupted (or natural) flow and unaltered condition of the water from the territory of the upper riparian state (Godana, 1985). According to this theory, a riparian state may not proceed with the harnessing of a section of an international waterway traversing its territory if it is of a nature to cause injury to the interests of other basin States. This theory is thus favourable to the lower-basin state(s) and awards ‘a veritable right of veto to downstream states’ (ibid).
The theory limited territorial sovereignty and of limited territorial integrity. These theories are in practice complementary and even identical. Therefore they can be considered together. They consist in the assertion that every state is free to use the waters flowing on its territory, on condition that such utilization in no way prejudices the territory or interests of other states. Permiting use of rivers as far as no harm is done to other riparian States; these theories are where the concept of reasonable use originated. In an attempt to advance and improve on the doctrine of limited territorial sovereignty and integrity, this theory insists on a ‘community approach’. This approach suggests that all basin states have a common interest in developing the basin (ibid.). Under this theory, state boundaries should be ignored and drainage basin is regarded as an economic and geographic unit. This doctrine represents a more balanced approach that seeks to contribute to the joint development of riparian states within a shared basin through equitable division and sharing of benefits.
Each of these theories reflect different historical and judicial approaches to solving the problems experienced by riparian States (ILA, 1966; ILC, 1994) and also reflect an important change from rights to ownership of water, to one which strives to ensure that the interests of all parties are met equitably and effeciently. As international law as an instrument of regulations on the transboundary freshwater issues is at present inconclusive and weak (Naff, 1993). Management of international river basins might be possible only if the affected and concerned countries accept the limitation to their sovereignty over the common water resources. It requires mutual agreement to define this limitation. This is, of course, the obstacle, which can hinder the development of a partnership between the riparian states.
Law is an instrument that can be used to smooth out conflicts of interest generated, for instance, in the sharing of water resources. However, the utilization and management of shared river is subject not only to man-made laws but also the natural laws, which does not recognize the political and geographical boundaries. In order to form a framework for cooperation, States sharing water need first to settle their inter-State dispute over the water in question on a legal basis. The absence of formal political agreements contributes to this problem. On the other hand, since each river basin is unique, with its own economic, geographical, ecological and political variables, no comprehensive system of rigid rules can anticipate adequately the variations from one basin to another.
Settlements of Disputes and Conflict Resolutions
When countries disagree over the way in which water resources of an international river basin should be utilized, they have to resort to some disputes settlement procedures. So, before parties or countries sharing water system go into a conflict, which may from water security problem lead to a national security problem (Carlson, 1999), there are three main procedures and methods used to find a solution to the problem. These are (1) negotiation and consultation; (2) mediation and conciliation; and (3) arbitration and adjudication. Dispute over shared water bodies can normally arise at least under two different circumstances, one can be riparian states that have never entered a treaty or agreement, while the other can be an existing agreement which can not provide a binding decision to problem in dispute.
The solution for everything to you seems to be war lol, which only takes things back another step.
I don't like the TPLF but that does not mean I want innocent people to be dragged into something that can be avoided.
.
