¹ “Integrated Eiver Basin Development, ” U.N. ECOSOC Council Eeport 5 (E/3066) (1958).

² Ibid, at 32

³ “ Pollution of our country's rivers and streams has . . . reached alarming proportions.. . . Current corrective efforts are not adequate. This year a national total of $350,000,000 will be spent fromall sources on municipal waste treatment works. But $600,000,000 of construction is required annually to keep pace with the growing rate of pollution. ” PresidentKennedy in Message to IT. S. Congress on Natural Eesources, reported in the New York Times, Feb. 24, 1961, p. 12, col. 3.

⁴ U.N. ECOSOC Council Report, op. cit. note 1 above, at 43.

⁵ “ [I]t must be a matter of consideration whether there is not required a ‘formulation and systematization’ of rules of international law bearing upon the obligations of territorial sovereignty in the interest of orderly neighbourly intercourse and relations. . . . In the same category . . . may be considered the obligation of a State to prevent its territory from causing economic injury to the neighbouring territory in a manner not permitted by international law. ” Survey of International law in Eelation to the Work of Codification of the International Law Commission, U.N. Doc. A/CN. 4/1/Rev. 1 at 34-35 (1949). See also Sauser-Hall, “L’Utilisation Industrielle de Fleuves Internationaux, ” 83 Hague Academy Eecueil des Cours 465 (1953).

⁶ Sauser-Hall, loc. cit. note 5 above, at 481.

⁷ Second Report of Rapporteur of International Law Association, Committee on the Use of Waters of International Rivers (cited hereafter as I.L.A. Comm.), Sec. I I , p. 12 (1958).

⁸ E.g., U.N. Doc. E/ECE/311, par. 4; 14 W.H.O. Bulletin No. 5, at 846 (1956).

⁹ “ Thus a river, viewed as a stream,is the property of the people through whose territory it flows, or of the ruler under whose sway that people is. It is permissible for the people or the king to run a pier out into it, and to them all things produced in the river belong.” 2 Grotius, De Jure Belli ae Pacis, Ch. 2, sec. 12 (1646 ed., Kelsey trans.).

¹⁰ “ But the same river, viewed as running water, has remained common property, so that one may drink or draw water from it . ” Ibid.

¹¹ U4 Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium, Ch. 5, sec. 7, Ch. 8, sec. 11 (1688 text, Oldfather trans.); 2 Vattel, Le Droit des Gens, Ch. 1, see. 18 (1758 ed., Fenwick trans.); Wolff, Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica, Ch. 2, sec. 173 (1764 ed., Drake trans.); 2 Wheaton, Elements of International Law, Ch. 4, sec. 193 (1866 ed.); 1 Martens, Traite de Droit International 480-481 (1886).

¹² E.g., Klüber, 1 Europäisches Völkerrecht 128 (1821); Heffter, Das Europaische Volkerrecht der Gegenwart 150 (1888).

¹³ Neumeyer, , “ Ein Beitrag zum Internationalen Wasserrecht,” in Festschrift fiir Georg Cohn 143 (1915)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Caratheodory, Du Droit International concernant les Grands Cours d’Eau (1861). For the history and development of the principle of free navigation, see TJ.N. Doc. E/ECE/136, pp. 26-35 (1952).

¹⁵ Cutler, The International Law of Navigable Rivers 3-4 (1865).

¹⁶ 24 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 365 (1911).

¹⁷ Harmon, 21 Ops. Attys. Gen. 274, 283 (1895).

¹⁸ isSikri (Advocate-General, Punjab, India), Comments on I.L.A. Comm. 1st Eep. (1956); Bains, “The Diversion of International Rivers,” 1 Indian J. Int. Law 38, 44 (1960).

¹⁹ Treaty with Mexico, May 21, 1906, Arts. 4 and 5, 34 Stat. 2953, TJ. S. Treaty Series, No. 455; 1 A.J.I.L. Supp. 281 (1907); Boundary Waters Treaty with Great Britain (on behalf of Canada), Jan. 11, 1909, Art. 2, IT. S. Treaty Series, No. 548; 4 A.J.I.L. Supp. 239 (1910).

²⁰ Dealey, , “The Chicago Drainage Canal and St. Lawrence Development,” 23 A.J.I.L. 307, 327 (1929)Google Scholar.

²¹ Austin, “ Canadian-United States Practice and Theory Respecting the International Law of International Rivers,”37 Canadian Bar Rev. 393, 439 (1959); Bourne, “The Columbia River Controversy,” Ibid. 4AA, 457. The possibility of a repudiation of the Harmon Doctrine by the United States, as lower riparian on the Columbia River, has been removed by the signing of a new treaty with Canada on the use of the Columbia River Basin. Provision is made therein for construction, and diversion of waters by Canada, and for compensation by the United States for resulting benefits to her. Art. 17 expressly provides that the previous legal position of the contracting parties shall be unchanged after the expiration of the treaty. Treaty Relating to Cooperative Development of the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin, Jan. 17, 1961, Sen. Exec. C, 87th Cong., 1st Sess.; in 44 Dept. of State Bulletin 234 (1961). This treaty has not yet been ratified by Canada.

²² “ April 12, 1895, the Secretary of the Interior communicated to the Department of State certain papers concerning the reported intention of a . . . corporation of British Columbia to dam Boundary Creek where it washes the boundary line, the resuit of which would be the overflow and washing away of the lands and improvements of settlers in the State of Idaho. The papers were communicated to the British Ambassador . . . with a request that if on investigation the facts were found to be as stated, suitable measures be taken to avert the threatened injury.” After the apprehended injury occurred, further papers were communicated to the Ambassador. The British Government replied “ t h a t the complainants had a right of action in the courts of British Columbia, and that they would be entitled to sue for damages and for an injunction against the continuance of the mischief.” 2 Moore, Digest of International Law 451-452 (1906).

²³ E.g., Huber, “Ein Beitrag zur Lehre der Gebietshoheit an Grenzfliissen,” in Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht (1909); Ullmann, Une Question de Droit International sur les Cours d'Eau 10-11 (1911).

²⁴ See, e.g., Lederle, Das Becht der internationalen Gewasser 60 (1920); Smith, The Economic Use of International Eivers 71 (1931); Gonnenwein, Freiheit der Flusschiffahrt 65 (1940) ; Brierly, Law of Nations 205 (5th ed., 1955); 1 Oppenheim, International Law 346-347, 474-475 (8th ed., Lauterpacht, 1955) ; I.L.A. Comm. 1st Eep. (1955); Laylin, Comments submitted to the I.L.A. Comm. 5 (1956); Eagleton, “The Use of the Waters of International Eivers,” 33 Canadian Bar Eev. 1018, 1023 (1955). The literature is comprehensively surveyed in Berber, Eivers in International Law (1959). Berber recognizes sic utere tuo only as a matter of comity. Id. at 207-209. It may also be noted that the principle has received wide recognition in the analogous field of radio-broadcasting, where interference through “jamming” or unauthorized broadcasting might be viewed as another type of international pollution. International agreements have established the principle of non-interference for propaganda or for peaceful purposes, and specific frequencies have been assigned to the high contracting parties. See, e.g., International Radiotelegraph Convention, Nov. 25, 1927, Art. 10, sec. 2, 84 L.N. Treaty Series 97; International Radiotelegraph Convention, Dec. 9, 1932, Art. 35, sec. 1, 151 L.N. Treaty Series 5; International Convention on the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace, Sept. 23, 1936, Art. 1, 186 L.N. Treaty Series 301. Moreover, writers on broadcasting in international law have used arguments strikingly similar to those used in discussion of international river law; for example, the familiar concepts of neighborship rights and duties, the mutual interests of common users, and abuse of rights, Stenuit, La Radiophonie et le Droit International Public (1932). Of even greater relevance is Wright's recent discussion of subversive propaganda, in which he declared that:

²⁵ Sauser-Hall, “ L’UtilisationIndustrielle de Fleuves Internationaux,” 83 Hague Academy Becueil des Cours 465, 554-555 (1953).

²⁶ Thalmann, Grundprinzipien des modernen zurischenstaatlichen Nachbarrechts 33 1951).

²⁷ Andrassy, “Les Relations Internationales de Voisinage,” 79 Hague Academy Jeoueil des Cours 4, 80-81 (1951). For a more elaborate discussion of the application of the neighborship concept to international river law, see also Andrassy, “L’Utilisaion des Eaux des Bassins Fluviaux Internationaux,” 16 Revue Egyptienne de Droit nternational 23 (1960).

²⁸ Sauser-Hall, loc. cit. note 25 above, at 557-558; U.N. Doc. E/ECE/136, p. 92; lanner, “Water Pollution in International Law,ECE/” Water Poll./Conf./12, p. 17 1960).

²⁹ Politis, “ Le Probléme des Limitations de la Souverainä et la Théorie de l’Abus es Droits dans les Rapports Internationaux,”6 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours , 81 (1925).

³⁰ Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court 162 (1958).

³¹ Case Concerning German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 24, p. 12 (1930); Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, [1951] I.C.J. Eep. 142.

³² Sauser-Hall, loc. cit. note 25 above, at 552.

³³ Pabre, Des Servitudes dans le Droit International Public 23 (1901); Eeid, International Servitudes in Law and Practice 15-16 (1932); “Verykios, La Prescription en Droit International 309 (2nd ed., 1958)”.

³⁴ Labrousse, Des Servitudes en Droit International Public 13-14 (1911).

³⁵ 35Potter, “The Doctrine of Servitudes in International Law,” 9 A.J.I.L. 627, 641(1915). See also Herbst, Staatensukzession und Staatsservituten (1962).

³⁶ 56 American Jurisprudence 816 (1947) (emphasis added).

³⁷ Lauterpacht, Private Sources and Analogies of International Law 119 (1927).

³⁸ U.N. Doc. E/ECE/136, p. 89.

³⁹ Margolis, “ The Hydrogen Bomb Experiments and International Law,” 64 Yale Law J. 629 (1955).

⁴⁰ McDougal and Schlei, “ The Hydrogen Bomb Tests in Perspective: Lawful Measures for Security,” 64 Yale Law J. 648, 684 (1955).

⁴¹ Ibid. at 685-688.

⁴² Ibid, at 691.

⁴³ Ibid . at 704.

⁴⁴ The Trail Smelter Arbitral Decision (UnitedStates v. Canada), 33 A.J.I.L. 182 (1939); 3 Int. Arb. Awards 1905, 1963 (1949).

⁴⁵ Ibid. at 1918

⁴⁶ Ibid. at 1932

⁴⁷ Ibid, at 1912

⁴⁸ Ibid, at 1963.

⁴⁹ Ibid, at 1965 (emphasis added).

⁵⁰ I t should be noticed that commentators on the case have generally been uncritical, perhaps because of their enthusiasm that an international tribunal has at last asserted the principle of state responsibility for extraterritorial injury. See, e.g., Kuhn, 32 A.J.I.L. 788 (1938).

⁵¹ Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125 (1902); Missouri v. Illinois, 200 IT. 8. 496, 52] (1906).

⁵² New York v. New Jersey, 256 U. S. 296, 309 (1921).

⁵³ “[T]he State has the last word as to whether its mountains shall be stripped of their forests and its inhabitants shall breathe pure air. . . . It is not lightly to be presumed to give up quasi-sovereign rights for pay . . . if that be its choice, it may insist that an infraction of them shall be stopped. This court has not quite the same freedom to balance the harm that will be done by an injunction against that of which the plaintiff complains, that it would have in deciding between two subjects of a single political power.” Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company, 206 U. S. 230 (1907).

⁵⁴ Trail Smelter, 3 Int. Arb. Awards at 1965.

⁵⁵ Diversion of Water from the Meuse, P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 70 (1937).

⁵⁶ Lake Lanoux (Spain v. France), 62 Eev. Gén.de Droit Int. Pub. 79 (1958); see 53 A.J.I.L. 156 (1959), for translation. The case, which was decided Nov. 16, 1957, has been carefully analyzed by Gervais, “L'Affaire du Lac Lanoux,” 6 Annuaire Franais de Droit Int. 372 (1960). See also J. G. Laylin and E. L. Bianchi, in 53 A.J.I.L. 30 (1959).

⁵⁷ Ibid. 156, 160 (1959).

⁵⁸ Ibid. at 163.

⁵⁹ Corfu Channel Case (Merits), [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 3.

⁶⁰ Ibid. at 18.

⁶¹ Ibid, at 22.

⁶² Clagett, “ Survey of Agreements Providing for Third-Party Eesolution of International Water Disputes,” 55 A.J.I.L. 645, 646 (1961).

⁶³ Cano, “ Preliminary Eeview of Questions Belating to the Development of International River Basins in Latin America,” U.N. ECOSOC Council Keport, Economic

⁶⁴ lbid. at 26.

⁶⁵ For administrative considerations beyond the scope of this article, see Cano, “ Systems of Administrative Organization for the Integrated Development of Eiver Basins , ” TJ.N. ECOSOC Council Report, Economic Commission for Latin America, 8th Sess. (1959), U.N. Doc. E/CN.12/503 (1959); Finer, “ The TVA: Lessons for Internationa Application,” International Labour Office Studies and Reports, Ser. B, No. 37 (1944).

⁶⁶ Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court 377-379 (1958).

⁶⁷ E.g., Treaty between Norway and Sweden, Oct. 26, 1905, Art . 2, 34 Martens, Nouveau Eecueil General (2e ser.) 710.

⁶⁸ E.g., Treaty between Denmark and Germany, April 10, 1922, Art . 29, 10 L.N. Treaty Series 215; Treaty between Belgium and Germany, Nov. 7, 1929, Art . 70, 121 L. N. Treaty Series 329.

⁶⁹ E.g., Treaty between Trance and Switzerland, March 9, 1904, Art . 6, 33 Martens, op. cit. 501.

⁷⁰ Treaty between France and Italy, Dec. 17, 1914, Art. 1, Basdevant, 3 Traites 810; Treaty between Dominican Eepublic and Haiti, Feb. 20, 1929, Art. 10, 105 L.N. Treaty Series 216.

⁷¹ “ Each Party declares its intention to prevent, as far as is practicable, undue pollution of the waters of the Rivers . . . and agrees to take all reasonable measures to ensure that, before any sewage or industrial waste is allowed to flow into the Eivers, it will be treated, when necessary, in such manner as not materially to affect those uses.”Treaty between India and Pakistan, Sept. 19, 1960, Art. 3(2) (emphasis added). The text of the treaty may be found in 55 A.J.I.L. 797 (1961).

⁷² Treaty with Mexico, May 21, 1906, Art. 5; Boundary Waters Treaty with Great Britain (on behalf of Canada), Jan. 11, 1909, Art. 2, loc. cit. note 19 above.

⁷³ Eeport of the International Joint Commission (United States and Canada) on the Pollution of Boundary Waters 165 (1951).

⁷⁴ Ibid. at 172.

⁷⁵ “One-tenth of one part per million of phenol alone will impart to the water the characteristic taste and odor of carbolic acid. In water supplies which are chlorinated to protect against bacterial pollution phenol reacts with chlorine to produce intensely aromatic compounds. These compounds, even when highly diluted, give to the water tastes and odors which are variously described as medicinal, chemical or iodoform. Two one-thousandths of one part of phenol in one million parts of chlorinated water (2 p.p.b.) may be sufficient to cause objectionable tastes and odors. This condition often compels the public to resort to other water supplies, which may be palatable but dangerously contaminated.” Ibid, at 167-168.

⁷⁶ “Property has been injured through the discharge of sewage and industrial wastes. . . . ”Wastes containing oils, greases or tars have fouled bathing beaches, coated swimmers, and caused destruction of wildfowl. Any concentration of oil coats the hulls of boats and docks and creates a fire hazard. Phenols from industrial wastes interfere with the enjoyment of property rights by increasing the cost of water treatment or by excluding the use of water for industrial ordomestic purposes. Phenol in water kills fish by producing paralysis of the neuromuscular mechanism and hemolizing the blood. . . . In addition to municipal and industrial effluents, these waters receive wastes from navigation, dredging, and careless dumping of refuse at shore points.“ Hid. at 168-169”.

⁷⁷ “Since waste discharges tend to diffuse and become diluted with the receiving waters, it is difficult to trace a specific effluent over the distance required to dissipate its potency. Added dilution through travel downstream and the admixture of similar or other deleterious materials further complicate this difficulty. The intermingling is also influenced by winds, bends in the river, islands or other obstructions, and navigation channels. These effects may not be constant. Under these circumstances it is not feasible to state, in exact terms, the amount of pollution which crosses from each country to the other.” Ibid, at 166. See also Christ, “Assessment of Economic Damage caused by Water Pollution,” ECB/Water Poll./Conf./26 (1961).

⁷⁸ Beport of International Joint Commission (United States and Canada) on the Pollution of Boundary Waters 173-174 (1951).

⁷⁹ Ibid, at 169-170.

⁸⁰ Ibid, at 171.

⁸¹ 25 Dept. of State Bulletin 947 (1951).

⁸² “ [L] a posizione respettiva dei cantoni, sottoposti al’autorita federale, e ben diversa da quella degli Stati, e tale differenza non permette di trarre deduzioni dall’uno all’;altro campo sensa estrema circospezione. Per la stessa ragione hanno un valore assai relativo e piu che altro come indicazione do possibili futuri sviluppi de diritto internazionale le operetedesche sul diritto delle acque che si occupano anche delle questioni concernenti i rapporti fra gli State dell’impero. . . . “ Anzilotti, ”Atti Internazionali, Convenzione con la Francia per l’Utilizzazione delle Acque del Flume Eoja e Suo Affluenti,” 9 Eivista di Diritto Internazionale 269 (1951).

⁸³ Schindler, “The administration of justice in the Swiss Federal Court in intercantonal disputes,” 15 A.J.I.L. 149, 155 (1921).

⁸⁴ The Trail Smelter (United States v. Canada), 3 Int. Arb. Awards 1905, 1965 (1949).

⁸⁵ “ Sitting, as it were, as an international, as well as a domestic tribunal, we apply Federal law, State law, and international law, as the exigencies of the particular case may demand.” Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 146-147 (1902); North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 TJ. S. 365, 372-373 (1923).

⁸⁶ Lauterpacht, Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law 71 (1927).

⁸⁷ “ [T]he true view of the duty of international tribunals in this matter [of private law analogies] is to regard any featuresof terminology which are reminiscent of the rules and institutions of private law as an indication of policy and principles rather than as directly importing these rules and institutions.” Status of South West Africa Case, [1950] I.C.J. Eep. 148, per JudgeMcNair.

⁸⁸ North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U. S. 365, 375 (1923).

⁸⁹ Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, 521 (1906); New York v. New Jersey, 256 U. S. 296, 309 (1921); North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 TJ. S. 365, 374 (1923).

⁹⁰ Missouri v. Illinois, 200 TJ. S. 496 (1906); New York v. New Jersey, 256 TJ. S. 296 (1921); Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 TJ. S. 660 (1931).

⁹¹ Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 TJ. S. 419 (1922); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336 (1931); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 TJ. S. 589 (1945).

⁹² Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company, 206 U. S. 230, 237 (1907).

⁹³ Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589, 618 (1945). See also Note on “What Eule of Decision Should Control in Inter-State Controversies?”, 21 Harvard Law Eev. 132 (1907); Barnes, “Suits between States in the Supreme Court,” 7 Tanderbilt Law Eev. 494 (1954); Heady, “Suits by States within Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,” 26 Washington U. Law Q. 61 (1940); Forer, “Water Supply: Suggested Federal Eegulation,” 75 Harvard Law Eev. 332 (1961).

⁹⁴ Schindler, loc. cit. note 83 above, at 172-173.

⁹⁵ Wurttemberg and Prussia v. Baden, [1928] Ann. Dig. 128, 130 (No. 86) (German Staatsgerichtshof).

⁹⁶ Ibid. at 131

⁹⁷ Ibid, at 132

⁹⁸ Society Energie Electrique du Littoral Mediterranean v. Compagnia Impresse Elettriehe Liguri, [1940] Ann. Dig. 121 (No. 47) (Italian Court of Cassation).

⁹⁹ See, e.g., Fischerhof, “Liability for Damage through Water Pollution in Municipal and International Law,” ECE/Water Poll./Conf./8 (1960), for summary of relevant municipal practice.

¹⁰⁰ E.g., New England Pollution Control Compact, 1947; New York Harbor (Tri- State) Interstate Sanitation Compact, 1935; Ohio Eiver Valley Water Sanitation Compact, 1939; Potomac Eiver Compact, 1939; Eed Eiver of the North Compact, 1937; Delaware Eiver Basin Compact, 1951. These are conveniently collected in Documents on the Use and Control of the Waters of Interstate and International Streams (U. S. Dept. of the Interior, ed. Witmer, 1956).

¹⁰¹ Cf. New York Harbor (Tri-State) Interstate Sanitation Compact, Art. 6(1), 1935; Ohio Eiver Valley Water Sanitation Compact, Art. 6, 1939.

¹⁰² Laylin and Bianchi, “The Role of Adjudication in International River Disputes,” 53 A.J.I.L. 30, 31 (1959).

¹⁰³ It has recently been suggested that Federal decisions and interstate compacts in the United States do not provide sufficient continuing discretion for the efficient use of national water resources, and that a Federal regulatory agency should therefore be created. Forer, “Water Supply: Suggested Federal Regulation,” 75 Harvard Law Rev. 332, 347-349 (1961).

¹⁰⁴ Sohn and Baxter, Convention on the International Kesponsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens (Draft No. 12, with Explanatory Notes) 46 (1961).

¹⁰⁵ “ The principal significance of the distinction between . . . State-to-individual and State-to-State responsibility is that the exhaustion of local remedies is required in the first case but not in the second.” Ibid, at 49.

¹⁰⁶ Garcia Amador, 2 I.L.C. Yearbook [1957] 106.

¹⁰⁷ Sohn and Baxter, Draft Convention on the International Eesponsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens, Prep. Docs. Nos. 24-36 at 4(9-10) (1959).

¹⁰⁸ Eagleton, The Eesponsibility of States in International Law 77 (1928); 1 Oppenheim, International Law 343 (8th ed., Lauterpacht, 1955); Corfu Channel Case (Merits), [1949] I.C.J. Eep. 3, 18.

¹⁰⁹ Pitzmaurice, 1 I.L.C. Yearbook [1957] 164.

¹¹⁰ “There is . . . good authority forsaying that the doctrine of risk . . . i.e., liability independent of any proof of carelessness for created hazards, has already been accepted in the countries of Euratom and of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation in the case of nuclear dangers . . . [A]mple support may be found among the ‘general principles of law recognized bycivilised nations’, to suggest that in any such case no court, international or municipal, could do otherwise than impose strict- liability.” Hardy, “ International Protection against Nuclear Eisks,” 10 Int. and fcomp. Law Q. 739 at 758-759 (1961).

¹¹¹ Berman and Hydeman, “ A Conventionon Third Party Liability for Damage from Nuclear Incidents,” 55 A.J.I.L. 966, 968 1961). The text of the convention is given Ibid, at 1082.

¹¹² Cf. 1911 Madrid Eesolution, op. cit. note 16 above: “Every alteration of water which constitutes a nuisance, every diversion of polluting substances . . . is forbidden” Declaration of Montevideo, 7th Int. Conf. of American States (1933):“No State may, without the consent of the other riparian State, introduce into watercourses of an international character, for the industrial or agricultural exploitation of their waters, any alteration which may prove injurious to the margin of the other interested State” I.L.A. Comm. 1st Sep. (1956): “Preventable pollution of water in one State which does substantial injury to another State renders the former State responsible for the damage done” I.L.A. Comm. 2d Eep. (1958): “A riparian is under a duty not to increase thelevel of pollution of a system of ‘international’ waters to the detriment of a co-riparian.” The most recent definition appears to adopt an absolute ratherthan relative approach

¹¹³ Manner, “Water Pollution in International Law,” ECE/Water Poll./Conf./12, p. 19 (1961).

¹¹⁴ Jiminez,“ International Legal Eules Governing Use of Water from International Watercourses,” 2 Inter-American Law Eev. 329, 332 (1960).

¹¹⁵ Sohn and Baxter, op. cit. note 107 above, at 48. Contra: Parry, “Some Considerations upon the Protection of Individuals in International Law,” 90 Hague Academy Becueil des Cours 657, 689(1956).

¹¹⁶ Manner, loc. cit. note 113 above, at 18. Cf. U.N. Doc. E/ECE/311, par. 66.

¹¹⁷ Habicht, The Power of the International Judge to give a Decision “ex Aequo et Bono” 79 (1935).