Search results

In The Protection of Water During and After Armed Conflicts: What Protection in International Law? , Mara Tignino offers an analysis of the principles and rules protecting water in situations of armed conflicts. The monograph also gives insights on the legal mechanisms open to individuals and communities after a conflict. Practice of international organizations and judicial decisions are examined in order to define the contours of the norms dealing with armed conflicts and post-conflict situations. Beyond international humanitarian law, the author suggests that other areas of international law should be taken into account such as human rights law and international water law. This comprehensive view aims at preventing damage to water resources and ensuring access to safe drinking water. Given the fragmentation of instruments and norms dealing with water in times of armed conflicts, it requires an in-depth examination of what means of international law may be developed to ensure a better protection to water

AbstractWater is the lifeblood of human beings and society, but threats to water, such as the pollution of rivers, cyber crimes, and attacks against water infrastructure, are increasing. In green criminology, scholars have relied on domestic criminal law to develop the concept of crimes against water. This paper argues that international law could provide several frameworks for addressing these crimes. A number of international treaties and customary rules deal directly or indirectly with crimes against water, and the United Nations Security Council has also dealt with crimes against water committed by terrorist groups and parties to armed conflict. Crimes against water may represent violations not only of domestic criminal laws but also of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

L'arbitrage relatif aux eaux du fleuve Kishenganga entre l'Inde et le Pakistan a commencé en mai 2010 à l'initiative du Pakistan. Entre 2011 et 2013, un tribunal arbitral, établi conformément au traité sur les eaux de l'Indus de 1960, a rendu quatre décisions, à savoir l'ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatoires du 23 septembre 2011, la sentence partielle du 18 février 2013, la décision du 20 décembre 2013 sur la demande en clarification ou interprétation de l'Inde datée du 20 mai 2013 et la sentence finale du 20 décembre 2013. Ces décisions portent sur un ouvrage hydroélectrique, projeté par l'Inde sur le fleuve Kishenganga qui fait partie du bassin du fleuve Indus. L'affaire Kishenganga est le premier cas dans lequel un tribunal arbitral a été constitué pour régler un différend relatif à l'application et à l'interprétation du traité de 1960. Ce traité est un exemple emblématique de coopération sur un cours d'eau international : il a continué à être appliqué malgré les hostilités dans la région du Cachemire et les trois guerres survenues entre l'Inde et le Pakistan depuis son adoption. D'un point de vue environnemental, la reconnaissance du principe relatif à la protection du débit environnemental minimum dans un cours d'eau est l'aspect le plus significatif des sentences de 2013. L'Inde peut détourner les eaux du fleuve Kishenganga à des fins de production d'énergie hydroélectrique mais elle doit le faire en assurant un débit minimum pour assurer la protection des ressources en eau.

AbstractWater scarcity, accelerated by climate change, affects water availability and may threaten peace and security. This role of water, as a contributing factor for triggering wars, sheds light on the significance of the protection of water during armed conflict. Keeping water out of war not only contributes to preserving an indispensable natural resource for life but also serves as a tool for the hostile parties to start negotiations, building trust and peace.

AbstractGiven the increasing size and functions of United Nations (UN) peace operations (POs) and the fact that they often operate in contexts where natural resources are degraded, POs have repercussions on the environment. Yet, there is not much literature on their obligations regarding the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts. This article provides insights into the obligations of POs in relation to armed conflict. First, it highlights POs' customary international environmental law obligations. Second, it delves into their environmental obligations under the UN's internal rules and the host State's laws. Third, it explores obligations that arise from their mandates. In each of these sections, the article highlights the relevance and application of these obligations in armed conflicts. The last section examines the obligations of POs to protect the natural environment under international humanitarian law.

This chapter analyses the norms and principles concerning the management of transboundary waters under international law, as well as the provisions of the Water Framework Directive on the same issue under European Union law. Then, the focus is moved to the hydrographical situation of Italy and the waters the country shares with neighbouring States. Even though, unlike other European countries, Italy does not share major watercourses or water bodies with other States, in at least a couple of cases (Lake Maggiore and Lake Lugano shared with Switzerland, and River Isonzo/Soča shared with Slovenia) joint management and control systems are in force, which pre-date the WFD by many years.

AbstractThe no-harm principle is at the heart of the several international conventions focusing on the uses, allocation, management and protection of transboundary water resources. However, in the framework of these agreements, the meaning of "no-harm" remains rather vague. Through an analysis of six emblematic cases brought before the International Court of Justice and arbitration tribunals, we elucidate the various facets of this principle. In doing so, the paper identifies four facets. The first is characterized by concerns related to the protection of territorial integrity rather than those related to the protection of the environment. The second facet focuses on the principle of equitable and reasonable use of water, which testifies to the willingness to anticipate possible harms and to define conditions for cooperation between neighbouring countries. The third facet explores the use of three instruments and emphasizes their importance to clarify the very nature of harm: the conduct of environmental impact assessment, the consultation of local populations and the insurance of minimum environmental flows. The fourth facet develops a preventive perspective on harm by unravelling the duty to take appropriate measures to prevent and mitigate risks deriving from the obligations of notification and consultation.