Water and international law: Science and evidence in international litigation

Environmental Law and Management

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 151-161

  Philippe, Sands Q C ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Matrix Chambers ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN RIGHTS; INTERNATIONAL LAW; LEGAL SYSTEM; WATER PLANNING;

ENGLAND; HUMBER ESTUARY; KINGSTON UPON HULL [ENGLAND]; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 78649684205     PISSN: 10676058     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. This is a revised version of the UKELA Garner Lecture I delivered on 2 December 2009 at the offices of Clifford Chance in London. Having served as counsel in the three cases discussed in the lecture, it is to be stressed that any views expressed are personal. I would also like to express my warm thanks to Andrea Mackielo and Rémi Reichhold, my research assistants at UCL, for their characteristically excellent support.
2. As of June 2010, two cases pending before the ICJ relate to maritime border delimitations: Peru v Chile and Nicaragua v Columbia; see http:/ /www.icj-cij.org .There is one further case concerning a maritime border dispute currently pending before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) between Bangladesh and Myanmar (parallel proceedings between Bangladesh and India are also pending before an Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)).
3. Guyana vSuriname Permanent Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Award of 17 September 2007 The Hague available at http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/flles/ Cuyana-Suriname%20Award.pdf.
4. See the Order of the ITLOS Tribunal in the Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) of 28 January 2010 available at http://www.itlos.org.
5. Trail Smelter Arbitration (US v Canada), 3 RIAA 1907 (1941).
6. Lake Lanoux Arbitration (France v Spain), 12 RIAA 281 (1957).
7. Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v France; New Zealand v France) (1974) ICJ Reports 253;
8. Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Nuclear Tests Case 1974 (New Zealand v France) (1995) ICJ Reports 288.
9. Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) Judgment of 20 April 2010 available at http://www.icj-cij.org . 9 R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Kingston upon Hull City Council, R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Bristol City Council and Another Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office List) (1996) 8 Journal of Environmental Law 336-53.
10. Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment [1991] OJ L135/40-52 (30 May 1991).
11. R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Kingston upon Hull City Council, R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Bristol City Council and Another(n 9) at 342.
12. ibid..
13. ibid at 344.
14. Case Concerning the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) Judgment of 25 September 1997 available at http:/www.icj-cij.org.
15. ICJ Statute arts 48 and 49 and Rules of the Court art 62.
16. This power was exercised in the Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) (1949) ICJ Reports 18.
17. ICJ Statute art 50 and Rules of the Court arts 62(2) and 67.
18. This was not always the case: in its first case, the Corfu Channel Case (n 16) the ICJ, during the merits phase, heard witnesses over a total of 20 days, from 22 November to 14 December 1948 and there was extensive examination and cross-examination; see CR 1949/1 Minutes of the Sittings held from November 9th to April 9th, 1949 available at http://www.icj-cij.otg.
19. Case Concerning the Cablikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (n 14).
20. Treaty Between the Hungarian People's Republic and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic Concerning the Construction and Operation of the Cablikovo-Nagymaros System of Locks, signed at Budapest on 16 September 1977,1978 U.N.T.S. 236.
21. Special Agreement Between the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic for Submission to the International Court of justice of the Differences Between Them Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, jointly notified to the Court on 2 July 1993.
22. Case Concerning the Cabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (n 14) at para 40.
23. This is explored in more detail below in the context of the Pulp Mills Dispute {Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) Judgment of 20 April 2010).
24. Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) (n 4) at para 53.
25. ibid para 54.
26. ibid paras 56, 57.
27. ibid para 78.
28. ibid para 112.
29. ibid para 113.
30. ibid..
31. ibid paras 132-37.
32. ibid para 140.
33. ibid para 54.
34. Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (n8).
35. Statute of the River Uruguay, signed at Salto on 26 February 1975, 1982 U.N.T.S. 340.
36. Application Instituting Proceedings filed in the Registry of the Court on 4 May 2006, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) available at http://www.icj-cij.org.
37. Demande en indication de mésures conservatoires présenté par le Gouvernement de la République argentine (4 May 2006) available at http://www.icj-cij.org.
38. Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Order of 13 July 2006 available at http://www.icj-cij.org.
39. 39 CR 2009/15 at 68 (Simma).
40. CR 2009/17 at 59 (Bennouna).
41. CR 2009/19 at 33-44 (Reichler).
42. CR 2009/21 at 22-27 (Sands).
43. Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (n 8) at paras 67-158.
44. ibid paras 169-266.
45. ibid para 159.
46. ibid para 165.
47. ibid para 166.
48. ibid..
49. Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (n 8) at para 167.
50. ibid para 168.
51. Separate Opinion of Judge Greenwood at para 27 available at http:/ /www.icj-cij.org
52. ibid..
53. ibid at para 28.
54. The ICJ made orders under Article 50 in the Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v Albania) (n 16) and in the Gulf of Maine Case (Canada v United States of America) (1984) ICJ Reports 246.
55. Separate Opinion of Judge Keith at para 11 available at htp// www.icj-cij.org.
56. See Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simma; Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Vinuesa; Declaration of Judge Yusuf, all available at http://www.icj-cij.org.
57. Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Vinuesa at para 95.
58. Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade at para 151.
59. Declaration of Judge Yusuf at para 3.
60. ibid para 12.
61. Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simma at para 2.
62. Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simmaibid para 4.
63. ibid para 7.
64. ibid para 14.
65. ibid..
66. ibid..
67. Guyana v Suriname (n 3) at paras 108, 394 and Appendix; see also Procedural Order No 6 appointing Mr David H Gray (27 November 2006);
68. Corrected Report on Site Visit by Mr David H Gray (30 July 2007).