scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "International and Comparative Law Quarterly in 2004"



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The most powerful democracy is detaining hundreds of suspected foot soldiers of the Taliban in a legal black hole at the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay, where they await trial on capital charges by military tribunals as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The most powerful democracy is detaining hundreds of suspected foot soldiers of the Taliban in a legal black hole at the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay, where they await trial on capital charges by military tribunals. This episode must be put in context. Democracies must defend themselves. Democracies are entitled to try officers and soldiers of enemy forces for war crimes. But it is a recurring theme in history that in times of war, armed conflict, or perceived national danger, even liberal democracies adopt measures infringing human rights in ways that are wholly disproportionate to the crisis. One tool at hand is detention without charge or trial, that is, executive detention. Ill-conceived rushed legislation is passed granting excessive powers to executive governments which compromise the rights and liberties of individuals beyond the exigencies of the situation. Often the loss of liberty is permanent. Executive branches of government, faced with a perceived emergency, often resort to excessive measures. The litany of grave abuses of power by liberal democratic governments is too long to recount, but in order to understand and to hold governments to account, we do well to take intoaccount the circles of history.

143 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: On 11 September 2001 commercial passenger jets hijacked by suicide commandos were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the death of several thousand people was witnessed live on television screens throughout the world as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: On 11 September 2001 commercial passenger jets hijacked by suicide commandos were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York. As the Towers imploded and collapsed, the death of several thousand people was witnessed live on television screens throughout the world. Those attacks, together with that on the Pentagon and the failed attempt that ended in Pennsylvania, aroused profound indignation and led to immediate reactions against the perpetrators or their protectors and sponsors, and more generally against international terrorism.

79 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Brussels II Regulation No 2201/2003 Concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and Matters Relating to Parental Responsibility Repealing Regulation (EC No 1347/2000) was adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council meeting in Brussels on 2 and 3 October 2003 final political agreement was reached on a new and expanded version of the Brussels II, a text which has commonly become known as Brussels II bis as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: At the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council meeting in Brussels on 2 and 3 October 2003 final political agreement was reached on a new and expanded version of the Brussels II Regulation, a text which has commonly become known as Brussels II bis. The instrument, which was adopted by the JHA ministers on 27 November, has now received formal classification as Council Regulation No 2201/2003 Concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and Matters Relating to Parental Responsibility Repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000. 1 The net result of this precipitous reform is that Brussels JJ shall cease to have effect from 1 May 2005, 2 a mere 4 years and 2 months after it entered into force. Henceforth there will be a single, integrated instrument which will cover, inter alia, the free movement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility as well as of matrimonial judgments and introduce provisions on cooperation between Member States.

67 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The preamble to the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1972 (the ‘World Heritage Convention’), adopted 30 years ago, testifies to the conviction of the States Parties ‘that deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural…heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world’ as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The preamble to the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1972 (the ‘World Heritage Convention’),1 adopted 30 years ago, testifies to the conviction of the States Parties ‘that deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural…heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world’.2 It speaks of the recognized ‘importance, for all the peoples of the world, of safeguarding this unique and irreplaceable property, to whatever people it may belong’3 and declares ‘that parts of the cultural…heritage…of outstanding interest…need to be preserved as part of the world heritage of mankind as a whole’.4

52 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Model Law on Procurement of Goods, Construction and Services (UNCITRAL) as discussed by the authors provides a template for reforming regulatory systems on public procurement, and has been adopted as a global standard for public procurement.
Abstract: The UNCITRAL Model Law on Procurement of Goods, Construction and Services,1 adopted in 1993/4, provides a template for reforming regulatory systems on public procurement. A decade on, UNCITRAL is now considering a review.2 This is timely for several reasons, not least because of new purchasing practices, especially in electronic procurement, and the increasing need for harmonization with other international norms. In this context, the present article offers a critical appraisal of the Model Law as a global standard for public procurement.

42 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The International Law Commission (ILC) appears to have arrived at a crossroads, as it must decide whether and how to approach further work on liability for transboundary environmental harm as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: There are several reasons, pertaining to both the development of a generallyapplicable framework and the elaboration of issue-specific approaches, why it is timely to reflect on whether liability regimes are an appropriate tool for international environmental protection. At the level of general norms, the International Law Commission (ILC) appears to have arrived at a crossroads, as it must decide whether and how to approach further work on liability for transboundary environmental harm. At the same time, discussions about issuespecific liability regimes have proliferated. Indeed, it seems that few multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) can be negotiated today without running across the liability issue in one way or another. The issue often divides Southern delegations, which tend to push for the inclusion of liability regimes, and Northerndelegations, which tend to resist. But the disagreement is not just a matter of policy and politics. There is also a lively debate in the literature about the pros and cons of international liability regimes. All the more reason, therefore, to assess whether engaging in the laborious task of developing a liability regime is a good investment of scarce negotiating resources. The goals that animate the quest for environmental liability are important ones: to make polluters pay for the environmental costs of their activities, to compensate innocent victims, to protect the environment, and, in certain contexts, to protect developing countries against environmental risks. The key question is whether, given these sensibilities, the approach makes sense.

42 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the case of the EC-Asbestos case as mentioned in this paper, the Appellate Body decided that it had no need to consider any of the amicus briefs submitted in that particular case, and yet still maintaining that panels and the Court have the right to take unsolicited amici briefs into account, should they so choose.
Abstract: As with other legal systems based on a separation of powers, the World Trade Organization is marked by a degree of tension between its political organs and its quasi-judicial organs, in particular the Appellate Body. In late 2000 this tension spilled out into the public domain, when the Appellate Body announced a procedure for the filing of amicus curiae briefs in the EC-Asbestos case.1 The question of public participation in WTO dispute settlement proceedings is sensitive to many WTO Members, and in expressly encouraging the submission of amicus briefs in this way the Appellate Body was felt to be overstepping its functions.2 In the end, this dispute settled with a draw, the Appellate Body deciding that it had no need to consider any of the amicus briefs submitted in that particular case, and yet still maintaining that panels and the Appellate Body have the right to take unsolicited amicus briefs into account, should they so choose.

37 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In fact, sonar is just one of a variety of anthropogenic undersea sounds which, scientific research increasingly suggests, impacts negatively on marine biodiversity and is as yet the subject of very little jurisprudential discussion as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: In September 2002 seventeen whales were stranded off the coast of the CanaryIslands at a time when NATO was testing its active sonar system designed to detect silent enemy submarines.1 The suggestion has been made that the use of sonar caused these whales to strand. In fact, sonar is just one of a variety of anthropogenic undersea sounds which, scientific research increasingly suggests, impacts negatively on marine biodiversity. Pollution of an acoustic nature is currently omitted from traditional works on the protection of the marine environment and is as yet the subject of very little jurisprudential discussion.2 However the topic, which has received scientific attention for over 30 years, has recently been identified as acause for concern and consequently, for action, within the parameters of a number of global and regional environmental instruments.

32 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors look behind the shrill rhetoric of the post-invasion commentary and invite a sober assessment of the current situation and explore whether we are truly at a turning point for international norms and institutions governing the use of force.
Abstract: Debates surrounding the second Iraq war have prompted a range of commentators to diagnose the death of the law on the use of force, to call for its adaptation to the globalization of threats and the problem of so-called failed States, or to assert the need to defend the UN Charter framework. In this article, we look behind the shrill rhetoric of the post-invasion commentary and invite a sober assessment of the current situation. Our aim is not to evaluate in detail the legality of the Iraq war. Others have done so thoroughly.1 Rather, we are interested in exploring whether we are truly at a turning point for international norms and institutions governing the use of force. If we do confront a ‘fork in the road’, as suggested by Kofi Annan in his address to the UN General Assembly on 23 September 2003,2 what changes to legal institutions and structures are required, and what new claims should we resist?

30 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The ASEAN Declaration was signed by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand on 8 August 1967 as mentioned in this paper, and it was later extended to include Laos and Myanmar in 1997.
Abstract: The raison d'etre of ASEAN was a political one,1 to secure the region's peace, stability, and development. Against all odds, the founding members, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand signed the ASEAN Declaration on 8 August 1967. Brunei was admitted in January 1984, Vietnam in 1995, which was followed closely by Laos and Myanmar in 1997. Thirty-two years later, on 30 April 1999, ASEAN formally encompassed all ten countries of South-East Asia by admitting Cambodia.2

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The ILC&s contains six circumstances which, when invoked justify, or excuse, the commission of acts that are otherwise unlawful against another State as mentioned in this paper. But these circumstances attenuate or remove responsibility entirely, and none of these circumstances precludes the wrongfulness of a state which is not in conformity with anobligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.
Abstract: Chapter V (Part 1) of the ILC&s1 Articles on State Responsibility2 contains sixcircumstances which, when invoked justify, or excuse,3 the commission of acts that are otherwise unlawful against another State.4 The circumstances attenuate or remove responsibility entirely. These circumstances are namely: consent (Article 20), selfdefence (Article 21), countermeasures (Article 22), force majeure (Article 23), distress (Article 24), and necessity (Article 25). Nonetheless, Article 26 of the ILCASR states that ‘[n]othing in this Chapter precludes the wrongfulness of a State which is not in conformity with anobligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.’

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider the existing approaches and the Commission's proposal for reform, and suggest an alternative, and analyze the recent cases in this light, concluding that the correct construction of the Rome Convention remains unclear.
Abstract: Article 4 of the Rome Convention determines the law governing a contract in the absence of choice by the parties. Despite its practical importance, and several decisions of the Court of Appeal, the correct construction of Article 4 remains unclear. This article considers the existing approaches and the Commission's proposal for reform, ventures to suggest an alternative, and analyses the recent cases in this light.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In 2001 Ireland commenced litigation against the United Kingdom (UK) over the construction and operation of a plant to produce mixed oxide fuels at the Sellafield nuclear complex in north-west England.
Abstract: In 2001 Ireland commenced litigation against the United Kingdom (UK) over the construction and operation of a plant to produce mixed oxide fuels at the Sellafield nuclear complex in north-west England. This litigation, which had been only partially concluded at the time of writing, raises a series of fascinating and often complex issues of both international and EU law. These include the potential for overlapping jurisdiction between different international tribunals; the division of competence between the EC and its Member States in relation to participation in treaties; and the use of litigation as a strategy for settling inter-State disputes. The aim of this article, apart from giving a snapshot of the position that the increasingly tortuous course of this litigation had reached by January 2004, is to explore these issues. The article begins by setting out the background to the litigation and giving a quick overview of its course so far. It then explores in more detail the questions of overlapping jurisdiction of international tribunals and of EC law raised by the litigation, before concluding with a few, rather speculative, thoughts about Ireland's choice of litigation as a strategy.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The European Council and the Member State would then enter into negotiations on a mutually agreeable basis for withdrawal, including a framework for the future relationship between the EU and the member state as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: After almost 50 years in existence in a variety of different forms, the EU finally has an express proposal on the table dealing with the potential withdrawal of a Member State. Article 59 of the draft Constitution states that any Member State may now ‘decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’.1 The Member State would have to formally notify the European Council of this decision. The Council and the Member State would then enter into negotiations on a mutually agreeable basis for withdrawal, including a framework for the future relationship between the EU and the Member State. The results of this negotiation would require approval by a qualified majority of the Council after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.2 In any event, withdrawal would occur not later than two years following the notification unless extended by agreement between the Member State and the European Council.3

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In 2003, the United Nations General Assembly approved an agreement between United Nations and the Cambodian government (UN Agreement) providing for United Nations assistance in the establishment and operation of "extraordinary Chambers" within the domestic court structure of Cambodia as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: In May 2003 the United Nations General Assembly approved an agreement between the United Nations and the Cambodian government (UN Agreement) providing for United Nations assistance in the establishment and operation of ‘Extraordinary Chambers’ within the domestic court structure of Cambodia.1 The UN Agreement is the result of a lengthy process of negotiation between the United Nations and the Cambodian government, with the intervention of several interested states.2 The final agreement reflects a compromise between the need to address impunity and the need to preserve Cambodian sovereignty.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the core provisions of the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations are deceptively simple: a contract is governed by the law chosen by the parties (Article 3(1)).
Abstract: The core provisions of the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations are deceptively simple: a contract is governed by the law chosen by the parties (Article 3(1)); to the extent that the parties have not made a choice, a contract is governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected (Article 4(1)). However, within these provisions there are a number of problems. First, Article 3 provides that the parties’ choice may be either express or ‘demonstrated with reasonable certainty from the terms ofthecontract or the circumstances of the case’. This gives rise to potentially difficult questions about what constitutes an express choice and uncertainty as to the dividing line between, on the one hand, cases where the parties have made a choice (albeit not an expressone) and, on the other, cases where the parties have not made a choice at all. Secondly, the general principle in Article 4 is supplemented bya presumption (in paragraph 2), 1 which may, incertain circumstances, be disregarded (under paragraph 5). The operation of the presumption is problematic and the relationship between Article 4(2) and Article 4(5) controversial.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors examines the legal obligations incumbent upon coastal States and flag States in respect of asylum-seekers rescued at sea and seeks to answer these questions, and suggests that the law in terms of search, rescue, and refuge is highly unsatisfactory because a number of key obligations are poorly defined and inadequately implemented.
Abstract: Coping with refugees arriving by sea is a problem that has existed for a number of years. Throughout this period the crux of the matter has remained the same, reconciling the humanitarian plight of refugees and asylum-seekers with the destination States' concerns about illegal immigration, mass migrations of people, and the costs of asylum. The boarding of the Tampa by Australian SAS troops in August 2001, in order to prevent the disembarkation of 433 asylum-seekers on Christmas Island, has once again brought into sharp focus the acute tension created between competing legal norms, and between moral and legal considerations. What are the rights of vessels and people in distress under the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and other maritime agreements? How do commercial considerations affect the obligation to assist those in distress at sea? What are the rights of refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention and other human rights instruments? What are the powers of a coastal State to protect itself from threats to national security in its coastal waters? This article examines the legal obligations incumbent upon coastal States and flag States in respect of asylum-seekers rescued at sea and seeks to answer these questions. It goes on to suggest that the law in respect of search, rescue, and refuge is highly unsatisfactory because a number of key obligations are poorly defined and inadequately implemented. It alsoseems clear that insufficient weight is given to humanitarian considerations. Finally, consideration is given to possible solutions to the problem

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Piotrowicz, R, van Eck, C (2004) Subsidiary Protection And Primary Rights International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53 (1), 107-138 RAE2008
Abstract: Piotrowicz, R, van Eck, C (2004) Subsidiary Protection And Primary Rights International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53 (1), 107-138 RAE2008

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A feature of the new law of the sea introduced by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) was the capacity for coastal states to assert vast maritime claims over waters adjacent to their coastlines as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: A feature of the new law of the sea introduced by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention),1 was the capacity for coastal states to assert vast maritime claims over waters adjacent to their coastlines. A continental shelf could be claimed out to a minimum of 200 nautical miles,2 while the newly recognized Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) also extended out to 200 nautical miles.3 The continental shelf had previously been recognized under the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf4 and so the extension of coastal state sovereign rights over the seabed and subsoil was consistent with already existing law of the sea principles. However the EEZ, which gave to coastal states sovereign rights over the living and non-living resources of the sea-bed and adjacent waters,5 was a new initiative of the LOS Convention and represents one of the most significant contemporary expansions of state sovereignty. By contrast with the extended continental shelf, which did not affect any significant pre-existing activities on the sea-bed, the new EEZ had a major impact upon fishing activities. As coastal states around the world eagerly proclaimed EEZs, waters previously considered high seas areas available for fishing6 were now within the reach of state fisheries’ jurisdiction and control. The result has been that under contemporary international law those waters available for the exercise of the high seas ‘freedom’ of fishing,7 have gradually been reduced. This new regime, in combination with parallel initiatives to regulate some aspects of high seas fishing activities, has meant that ‘legal’ fishing on the high seas is now subject to extensive regulation.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the international legal framework in place to facilitate the recovery and return of the items stolen from the Iraqi National Museum and other Iraqi cultural institutions and determine to what extent the US can be held legally responsible for the looting.
Abstract: Images of widespread looting were the first to come from Baghdad following the entry of US forces into the Iraqi capital city in April 2003. In particular, it is hard to forget the powerful images of smashed display cases, empty vaults, and desperate staff in the Iraqi National Museum. Worse still, the National Library was burnt down. The looting of the Iraqi National Museum took place between 8 April, when the security situation prompted staff to leave the museum, and 12 April when some of them managed to return. Despite early pleadings with US forces to move a tank to guard the museum gates, US tanks did not arrive until 16 April.1 Cynics would say that the protection of the Oil Ministry appeared to take priority at the time.2 Early reports estimated that around 170,000 items went missing from the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad.3 This figure was completely exaggerated and the Bogdanos enquiry established that over 13,000 items had been stolen and about 3,000 recovered by September 2003.4 This article seeks to determine to what extent the US can be held legally responsible for the looting, and then to examine the international legal framework in place to facilitate the recovery and return of the items stolen from the Iraqi National Museum and other Iraqi cultural institutions

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the evolving process of the law of maritime delimitation on the basis of the practice of international courts and tribunals is considered, and it is indispensable to consider this evolving process.
Abstract: International courts and tribunals have played a predominant role in the development of the law of maritime delimitation.1 In fact, since the North Sea Continental Shelf cases of 1969, eleven judgments concerning maritime delimitations were given by international courts and tribunals. Owing to the richness of international decisions, one may currently speak of ‘case law’ in the field of maritime delimitations. Thus it is indispensable to consider the evolving process of the law of maritime delimitation on the basis of the practice of international courts and tribunals.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this country, executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Fortunately it is still startling, in this country, to find a person held indefinitely in executive custody without accusation of crime or judicial trial. Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land, (per Jackson J, Shaughnessy v United States ex rel Mezei 345 US 206 (1953))

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the Asia-pacific region, a number of National Human Rights Commissions (hereafter NHRCs) have been established in compliance with United Nations standards in the last decade.
Abstract: The last decade has seen the rise of a potentially significant development in the Asia-Pacific region in regard to human rights—the establishment of National Human Rights Institutions (particularly Human Rights Commissions) in numerous States.2 National Human Rights Commissions (hereafter NHRC) established in compliance with United Nations standards have been established in Australia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.3 In many of these States, however, human rights abuses are still widespread and serious. The establishment of NHRC, which generally do not have the power to make enforceable decisions, could easily be derided as an attempt by governments to create a fac.ade of respect for human rights while failing to take the enforcement of those rights seriously.4 While this criticism has a degree of validity, NHRC have played a constructive, if limited role, in the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia-Pacific region.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In Botswana, the country has had to grapple with many problems caused by constitutionally sanctioned discrimination in many areas of its social, economic, and political life, despite some half-hearted, improvised and short-term solutions as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: At independence in 1966 Botswana, like most former British colonies, adopted a Constitution which included a Bill of Rights. Whilst this tried to reconcile the needs of maintaining public order with that of protecting human rights, it did not entirely remove some of the vestiges of authoritarianism and discrimination that had been associated with the preceding colonial administration. Since independence, the country has had to grapple with many problems caused by constitutionally sanctioned discrimination in many areas of its social, economic, and political life. Despite some half-hearted, improvised and short-term solutions, the problems just would not go away.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The binding force of interim measures of protection in the United Nations human rights system in light of the views of the Human Rights Committee (hereafter the Committee) in Piandiong, Morailos and Bulan v The Philippines is examined in this article.
Abstract: International human rights bodies with responsibility for monitoring the implementation and enforcement of rights protected by human rights treaties are usually empowered to indicate interim, or provisional, measures of protection in cases of urgency in order to safeguard the rights and persons of victims of alleged violations of human rights.1 Whether State parties are obliged to comply with a request for interim measures of protection has been the subject of some debate. The purpose of this note is to examine the issue of the binding force of interim measures of protection in the United Nations human rights system in light of the views of the Human Rights Committee (hereafter the Committee) in Piandiong, Morailos and Bulan v The Philippines.2 Before doing so, however, we need to recall briefly the Committee's role in securing the rights of the individual.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the current state of administrative law in the context of European integration is discussed, and the potential for development of the administrative law offered by the Convention on the Future of Europe, and its proposed European Constitution, as well as the enlargement of the EU which has taken place.
Abstract: The subject of this article is the current state of administrative law in the context of the European integration. It will indicate the prospects for development of administrative law offered by the Convention on the Future of Europe, and its proposed European Constitution, as well as the enlargement of the EU which has taken place. The focus is on rules and general principles of European administrative law. They constitute the main sources of administrative law—written rules as well as unwritten judge-made law, and both the development of these sources and their mutual influence are subjects of the present article.

Journal Article
TL;DR: The 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses as discussed by the authors is an authoritative guide to the rules of international law governing the navigational and non-navigational uses of international rivers, lakes, and groundwater.
Abstract: This book is an authoritative guide to the rules of international law governing the navigational and non-navigational uses of international rivers, lakes, and groundwater. The continued growth of the world’s population places increasing demands on Earth’s finite supplies of fresh water. Because two or more States share many of the world’s most important drainage basins, competition for increasingly scarce fresh water resources will only increase. Agreements between the States sharing international watercourses are negotiated, and disputes over shared water are resolved, against the backdrop of the rules of international law governing the use of this precious resource. The basic legal rules governing the use of shared freshwater for purposes other than navigation are reflected in the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. This book devotes a chapter to the 1997 Convention but also examines the factual and legal context in which the Convention should be understood, considers the more important rules of the Convention in some depth, and discusses specific issues that could not be addressed in a framework instrument of that kind. It reviews the major cases and controversies concerning international watercourses as a background against which to consider the basic substantive and procedural rights and obligations of States in the field. This new edition covers the implications of the 1997 Convention coming into force in August 2014, and the compatibility of the 1997 and 1992 Conventions.