¹ International Law Association (I.L.A.), Report of the Fifty-Second Conference held at Helsinki, 1966, at 478–533 (1967). For references to international bodies particularly active in the field, see infra note 32.

² Article 3/4 of the Treaty between Austria and Czechoslovakia of December 7, 1967, in 728 U.N.T.S. 356. Also Article 4/1 of the Agreement between Finland and U.S.S.R. of April 24, 1964 (537 U.N.T.S. 254); Article 4 of the Agreement between Canada and U.S.A of April 15, 1972 (837 U.N.T.S. 220).

³ O.E.C.D. Council Rec. C (76) 161, Annex A/15, 16 Int’l Leg. Mat. 986 (1977).

⁴ Principle VIII/2 of the European Water Charter, as adopted by the Council of Europe in 1967 and reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission (hereinafter cited Y.B.I.L.C.), 1974, II, 343. Also European Draft Convention on the Protection of Fresh Water against Pollution, which is still under scrutiny by the competent bodies within E.E.C. (Bulletin 1978, XI, 2.1.64) with special reference to Article 2. For the text of the Draft, see Y.B.I.L.C., 1974, II, 344.

⁵ O.E.C.D. Council Rec. C (74) 224, Title B/1/c (14 Int’l Leg. Mat. 244 (1975)).

⁶ E.E.C. Directive of June 16, 1975, Official Journal (O.J.) L. 194, 1975, at 38. Also Directive of March 20, 1978, O.J.L. 84, 1978, at 43.

⁷ O.E.C.D. Council Rec. C (77) 28 (16 Int’l Leg. Mat. 980 (1977)), with special reference to Annex A/3/b.

⁸ Title B/4 of the same text (ibid., 981). Also Constituent Elements of Equal Right of Access, annexed to O.E.C.D. Council Rec. C (76) 55 (16 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1219 (1976)).

⁹ The text on International Co-operation, approved by the Water Conference, recognizes the “interdependencies” across international frontiers but reaffirms the principles of sovereignty and territorial integity without mentioning the unity of water basins. Text in E/CONF.70/29, reproduced in F.A.O., Background Paper no. 1/Rev. 1, 1978, compiled by Dante A. Caponera (F.A.O. Background Paper 1978), at 56. The fact that participants could not agree on the terms “transboundary waters” and “international waters” seems significant. See also the first report on the law of non-navigational uses of international watercourses, by R. D. Kearney, in Y.B.I.L.C., 1976, II/i, at 184. The Draft European Convention of 1974 (supra note 4), Article 1, has substituted the original expression of the 1969 draft “international drainage basin” with “international watercourses.”

¹⁰ The provisions adopted by I.L.A. at New York in 1958 on the use of the waters of international rivers seem still relevant on the issue: “A system of rivers and lakes in a drainage basin should be treated as an integrated whole” (Point 2/a in Report to the Forthy-Eighth Conference held at New York, 1958, at viii (1959). E.E.C. Directive 76/464, Article 1 expressly applies also to ground waters 15 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1113 (1970). See also the E.E.C. Assembly’s opinion on the Council Draft Directive on Ground Waters, O.J.C. 296 of December 11, 1978, at 35, Point no. 10. For further references, see Principles for International Ground-Water Law, by Caponera, D.A., Alléritière, D., in 2 Natural Resources Forum 279, 359 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ On “integrated water resources development units,” see B. J. Wohlwend, Legal and Institutional Aspects of Ground Water Development for Irrigation, International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, Ninth Congress, Question 31.

¹² U.N. Doc. A/32/183, 16 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1254-55 (1977), Article 19/2 and 3 (d). Also Articles 136 of the U.N. Third Conference on the Law of the Sea, Informal Composite Negotiating Text (I.C.N.T.) 1977, ibid., 1155; with reference to waters other than surface, ground, internal, and territorial waters, see Article 8 of E.E.C. Council Directive 76/464 of May 4, 1976, in 15 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1116 (1976).

¹³ For example, see the Preamble of the London Convention on Dumping of Wastes at Sea, November 13, 1972, in 11 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1294 (1972), reproducing Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, 1972. References to the benefit of future generations are found also in the Preamble of U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. Agreement of May 23, 1972 (ibid., 761) as well as in the Preamble of U.S.A.-D.D.R. Agreement of May 9, 1974 (13 Int’l Leg. Mat. 598 (1974)).

¹⁴ In this connection, see the Final Report on Relationship of International Water Resources with Other Natural Resources and Environmental Elements, by Cano, G.J. and Barberis, J.A., July 1977 Google Scholar; Teclaff, L.A., Arguments for the Inclusion in the Helsinki Rules of Chapter 5 bis, on the Relationship between Water, Other Natural Resources, and the Environment, 1977,Google Scholar a Working Paper to the I.L.A. Committee on International Water Resources.

¹⁵ Article 196 of I.C.N.T. on the Law of the Sea, 16 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1177 (1977). See also the Resolution on Marine Pollution of Continental Origin adopted by the I.L.A. in 1972, in Report of the Fifty-fifth Conference held at New York, 1972, at xvii (1974).

¹⁶ O.E.C.D. Council Rec. on Coastal Management, C (76) 161 of October 12, 1976, on Principles concerning Coastal Management, Annex A/17 (ibid., 986). Article 8 of E.E.C. Directive 76/464 by E.E.C. Council may also be recalled in this connection (15 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1116 (1976)).

¹⁷ Text adopted by the U.N. Water Conference at Mar del Plata (1977) on international co-operation (F.A.O. Background Paper 1978, at 56). Also point A/40-44 of O.A.U. Declaration on African Co-operation, Development and Economic Independence, of May 28, 1973 (12 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1005 (1973)). As for treaty provisions, see for example Article 8 of the Treaty between Poland and U.S.S.R., July 17, 1964, and Chapter 3 of the Treaty between Finland and U.S.S.R. of April 24, 1964 (552 U.N.T.S. 189 and 537 U.N.T.S. 253).

¹⁸ Treaty between Austria and Czechoslovakia of December 7, 1967 (728 U.N.T.S. 356) Article 11/1.

¹⁹ Principle 9/3 of U.N.E.P. Programme on the Utilization of Natural Resources shared by two or more states (February 1978), reproduced in F.A.O. Back-ground Paper 1978, at 63.

²⁰ For example, Article 3 of the Agreement between Argentina and Paraguay of January 23, 1958 (649 U.N.T.S. 182) ; Article 10 of the Agreement between Poland and U.S.S.R. of July 17, 1964 (552 U.N.T.S. 194); Article 2/2 of the European Convention on the Protection of the Rhine against Chemical Pollution and Article 4/4 of the Agreement for the Protection of the Rhine against Pollution by Chlorides, both of December 3, 1976 (16 Int’l Leg. Mat. 244 and 268 (1977) ).

²¹ See “Réglementation des Cours d’eau internationaux,” Observations par M. Kaufman, Annex II: in 24 Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international 194 (1911): “Les Etats riverains sont obligés de se communiquer d’avance de pareilles mesures ou constructions projétées dans leur territoire, concernant un Cours d’eau ou lac international, qui pourraient affecter essentiellement les intérêts de l’autre Etat riverain (ou de ses habitants).” More recently, see point no. 2 of U.N. General Assembly Resolution (G. A. Res.) 3129 (XXVIII) of January 15, 1974, and Article 3 of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, G. A. Res. 3281 (XXIX) of January 15, 1975, reproduced by Teclaff, L., Legal and Institutional Responses to Growing Water Demand, F.A.O. Legislative Study no. 14, 1977.Google Scholar More detailed provisions about a duty of information are contained in the Agreement of July 4, 1977 between Den-mark and the Federal Republic of Germany, which was concluded with a view to preventing environmental damage resulting from nuclear installations along the border. About water protection against radioactive waste pollution, see I.A.E.A., Safety Series no. 10 (disposal of radioactive wastes into fresh water) 1963 and no. 36 (disposal of radioactive wastes into rivers, lakes, and estuaries) 1972.

²² On this topic, see Charles Bourne, B., “Procedure in the Development of International Drainage Basins: The Duty to Consult and to Negotiate,” 10 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 212–34 (1972).Google Scholar It will be remembered that the World Court has recognized such an obligation in the Continental Shelf cases, [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 4, at 46–47 and in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case, [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 4, 201–2.

²³ See separate and dissenting opinions of Judges Ammoun and Morelli in the Continental Shelf cases, [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 4, 146 and 216 and the judgments of Judges Ignacio-Pinto, Gros, and Petren in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case, [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 4, at 37, 136–43, 159). Also L. Marion in Revue Générale de Droit International Public (1974), at 365 and 388. On the duty to negotiate, see Barberis, J.A., “La liberté de traiter des Etats et le Jus Cogens,” Zeitschrift ausi. öff. Recht und Völkerrect, 1970, 30, at 19–45Google Scholar; Reuter, P., De l’obligation de négocier 711–33 (Comunicaz. Studi Univ. Milano, 1975)Google Scholar; Gebrehana, T., Duty to Negotiate (Uppsala, 1978).Google Scholar With reference to the duty of information in the law of the sea, see Schwarzkopf, H., Staatliche Informationspflichten im Seerecht (Berlin, 1974).Google Scholar

²⁴ For example, Articles 3 and 19 of the Treaty between Austria and Czechoslovakia of December 7, 1967 (728 U.N.T.S. 354, 372) ; Article 15 of the Convention on the Protection of the Rhine against Chemical Pollution, 1976 (16 Int’l Leg. Mat. 249 (1977)); Article 9 of the Soviet-Polish Treaty, 1974 (552 U.N.T.S. 194).

²⁵ O.E.C.D. Council Rec. C (74)224, Title E, no. 8 of the Annex (14 Int’l Leg. Mat. 246 (1975)). As for treaty practice, see Article 3/1 of the Agreement between Austria and Czechoslovakia, supra note 18.

²⁶ O.E.C.D. Council Rec. C (74) 224, Title C, no. 11 to 13. As for treaty provisions, see, for instance, Articles 3/10 and 7 of the 1964 Soviet-Polish Agreement (supra note 19) and the Memorandum of Understanding between Italy and U.S.A. about scientific and technical co-operation in the field of water desalting, pollution control, waste recovery, and conservation, June 24, 1968 (719 U.N.T.S. 109).

²⁷ O.E.C.D. Council Rec. C (74) 224, Title B, no. 1. The Draft European Convention, Article 12, envisages the conclusion of agreements of co-operation between states utilizing the same waters. This text also establishes minima standards and lists of dangerous or harmful substances according to possible uses (Y.B.I.L.C. 1974, II, 2, at 347–48).

²⁸ Text reproduced in F.A.O. Background Paper 1978, at 44. As for treaty provisions, see for instance Chapter 7 of the Agreement between Finland and Sweden, 1971 (325 U.N.T.S. 308).

²⁹ O.E.C.D. Council Rec. C (74) 224 ( 14 Int’l Leg. Mat. 242 (1975)) ;C (76) 55 (15 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1218 (1976)); C (77) 28 (16 Int’l Leg. Mat. 977 (’977) ) on Transfrontier Pollution.

³⁰ I.L.A., Report of the Fifty-Seventh Conference held at Madrid, 1976, at 23966. Different forms of administration are also examined in the Working Paper by Manner, E.J., Ratia, J.U., Experiences in Joint Administration of Border Watercourses, U.N. Water Conference, E/CONF.70/TP 53 (1977)Google Scholar in addition to U.N. Pubi. ST/ESA/5: Management of International Water Resources: Institutional and Legal Aspects (1975). A list of references is in U.N. Publ., Bibliographical Series no. 23 (1977).

³¹ On this point, see esp. Springer, A.L., “Towards a Meaningful Concept of Pollution in International Law,” 26 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 531–57 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Article 9, I.L.A., Report of the Fifty-Second Conference held at Helsinki, 1966, at 494 (1967). “Pollution is a change, generally man-made, in the quality of water which makes it unusable or dangerous …” (European Water Charter, May 6, 1968) ; “Water pollution … refers to any detrimental change resulting from human conduct in the natural composition, content or quality of the waters of an international drainage basin” (Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee, Report of the Thirteenth Session, Lagos 1972); “… pollution means the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the environment resulting in deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger human health, harm living resources and ecosystems, and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment” (O.E.C.D. Council Rec. C (74) 224); “Water pollution means any impairment of the composition or state of water, resulting directly or indirectly from human agency; in particular to the detriment of … “(U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, A/CONF.48/8, para. 197); “A river is considered polluted when the water in it is altered in composition directly or indirectly as a result of the activities of man so that it is less suitable for any or all the purposes for which it would be suitable in its natural state” (I.A.E.A. Panel of Experts, Safety Series no. 36, 1971); “Pollution means the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine environment, resulting in such deleterious effects as …” (Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution, 1976, Article 7/a); “Pollution means any introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substance or energy into the environment resulting in deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger …” (O.E.C.D. Council Rec. C (77) 28).

³³ “If there is any clear consensus on any aspect of what pollution is, it is the general belief that pollution in the legal sense is necessarily caused by man, either directly or indirectly. This will be assumed in the discussion that follows” (A. L. Springer, supra note 31, at 531, n. 2).

³⁴ See draft articles on state responsibility adopted by the International Law Commission of the U.N., Y.B.I.L.C., 1971, II/1, at 199, Articles 1 to 4.

³⁵ Supra note 1, at 496.

³⁶ About state responsibility for nuclear damage, see Arangio-Ruiz, G., “Some International Legal Problems of the Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy,” Chapter VII, “The International Responsibility of States,” 107 Recueil des Cours, Tome III, at 503, esp. 628–30.Google Scholar More generally, see Hoffman, K.B., “State Responsibility in International Law and Transboundary Pollution Injuries,” 25 Int’l Comp. L. Q. 509–42 (1967) CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bollecker-Stern, B., Le préjudice dans la théorie de la responsabilité internationale (Paris, 1973).Google Scholar

³⁷ For example, Article 2 of the treaty between the states of the Niger Basin, October 26, 1963 (587 U.N.T.S. 11); Article 7/1 of the Treaty between Austria and Czechoslovakia, December 7, 1967 (728 U.N.T.S. 359); Article 3 of Chad Basin Statute annexed to the Treaty of May 22, 1964, (Rev. Jur. Pol. Indépendance et Coopération, 1965, at 308) ; Article 5/2 of the Treaty between Argentina and Paraguay of December 3, 1973 (Argentina Boletín Oficial, March 28, 1974, at 2).

³⁸ Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration has clearly inspired Article 194 of the I.C.N.T. 1977 on the law of the sea. The latter, however, with reference to marine environment protection and preservation speaks of “duty” instead of “responsibility,” while Article 193 employs the term “obligation.” See texts in 16 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1176 (1977). Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration is reproduced in F.A.O. Background Paper 1977, at 44.

³⁹ Florio, F., “Some Reflections on Marine Pollution and the General Principles of International Law, in Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 306 (1972)Google Scholar; “Sur l’utilisation des eaux non maritimes en droit international,” in Festschrift Berber 153 (1973). In its reply to the questionnaire of the International Law Commission on the law of non-navigational uses of international watercourses, July 1975, the government of Brazil mentioned the principles that had governed Brazilian treaty practice; according to this practice, watercourses “subject to the successive jurisdiction of two or more States and, therefore, subject to the principle of juridical responsibility …” (emphasis added) were not to be used so as to cause significant harm to other states (Y.B.I.L.C. 1976, II/1, at 153, no. 2).

⁴⁰ For example, Preamble and Article 1 of the Agreement on the Senegal River, February 7, 1964 (Rev. Jur. Pol. Indépendance et Coopération, 1965, at 302) and Canada-U.S.A. Water Quality Agreement on the Great Lakes, April 15, 1972, Preamble (11 Int’l Leg. Mat. 694 (1972)).

⁴¹ Article I/e of the same Canada-U.S.A. Water Quality Agreement on the Great Lakes, ibid., 695.

⁴² Among the most conspicuous examples, see: ibid., 700, Annex 1; Convention on the Protection of the Rhine against Chemical Pollution, 1976 (16 Int’l Leg. Mat. 253 (1977)); Draft European Convention for the Protection of International Watercourses against Pollution (Y.B.I.L.C. 1974, II, 2 at 348). However, responsibility for adapting these lists to circumstances and for keeping them up-to-date rests with the joint commissions set up under each agreement.

⁴³ For example, European Convention on Detergents (September 16, 1968), European Treaty Series no. 64, reproduced in 16 European Yearbook 335 1968) and, with regard to marine pollution, Barcelona Convention on the Protection of the Mediterranean (February 16, 1976) with related Protocols and Annexes (15 Int’l Leg. Mat. 290 (1976)). A very detailed list has been produced by the U.N. Committee of Experts on Transportation of Dangerous Substances (ST/SG/AC.10/Rev. 1, December 1977).

⁴⁴ For example, Article 5/2/b of the Convention on the Protection of the Rhine against Chemical Pollution (supra note 42 ) ; Article 6/b of E.E.C. Council Directive 76/464 (O.J.L. 129 of May 18, 1976).

⁴⁵ Article 5 as referred to by Article 10 of the Helsinki Rules.

⁴⁶ Preamble of the Convention on the Protection of the Rhine against Chemical Pollution (supra note 42).

⁴⁷ For example, U.S.A.-Mexico Agreement of August 30, 1973 (12 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1105 (1973)).

⁴⁸ For example, Article 1 /f of the Water Quality Agreement on the Great Lakes (supra note 40) ; Article 1/2 of the Convention on the Protection of the Rhine against Chemical Pollution (supra note 42). On the main categories of uses, see Dobbert, J.P., “Water Pollution and International Law,” in Yearbook of the A.A.A., 1965, at 64.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ “In determining preferences among competing uses by different co-basin States of the waters of an international drainage basin, special weight should be given to uses which are the basis of life, such as the consumptive uses” (Proposition no. V, Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee on the Law of International Rivers, 1973, reproduced in F.A.O. Background Paper 1978, at 46). See also the paramount objectives set forth by the Council of Europe in the Preamble of the Agreement on the Use of Certain Detergents, September 16, 1968 (European Treaty Series no. 64, reproduced in 16 European Yearbook 336 (1968).

⁵⁰ U.A.R.-Sudan Agreement on the Nile, Article 1 (453 U.N.T.S. 65). More elaborated is Proposition no. VII/2 by the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee (supra note 49). Among other texts, Article 10 of the Helsinki Rules is especially worth mentioning for the clear-cut distinction between existing water pollution and new forms of water pollution.

⁵¹ Supra note 9.

⁵² See Gaja, G., “River Pollution in International Law,” in Hague Academy of International Law, Colloquium 1973 on the Protection of Environment and International Law 358–78 (Leyden 1975).Google Scholar

⁵³ References to current doctrine on the legal value of international law principles in Florio, F., Spazi marini e principi di diritto internazionale 275–91 (Milano, 1977).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Institut de Droit International, 15ème Commission, La pollution des fleuves et des lacs et le droit international, Projet de Résolution révisé no. 2, septembre 10, 1979:

Article II: Dans l’exercice de leur droit souverain d’exploiter leurs propres ressources selon leur politique d’environnement et sans préjudice de leurs obligations conventionnelles, les Etats ont le devoir de faire en sorte que leurs activités ou celles exercées dans les limites de leur juridiction ou sous leur contrôle ne causent pas, au-delà de leurs frontières, de pollution aux eaux des fleuves et des lacs internationaux.

Article III: 1. Aux fins de l’exécution de l’obligation prévue à l’article II, les Etats doivent prendre toutes les mesures requises pour:

• a)

  a) prévenir la survenance de nouvelles formes de pollution en l’augmentation du degré de pollution existant;

• b)

  b) pourvoir, dans les meilleurs délais, à l’élimination de la pollution existante.

• 2.

  2. Ces mesures doivent être adaptées aux circonstances.

• 3.

  3. Elles doivent être particulièrement rigoureuses dans les cas d’activités comportant des risques exceptionnels ou un danger pour des zones ou milieux particulièrement menacés.

⁵⁵ Article VIII: Toute violation des obligations résultant des articles qui précèdent entraîne la responsabilité internationale de l’Etat, conformément aux principes du droit international.

⁵⁶ Article IX: La présente résolution est sans préjudice des obligations découlant pour les Etats des droits fondamentaux de la personne humaine en ce qui concerne la pollution se produisant sur leur territoire.