1.3.3. Cas pratique : conflit d’utilisation sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine/Uruguay)

Loading...

En provenance du cours de University of Geneva

Droit International de l'Eau Douce

18 notes

University of Geneva

Droit International de l'Eau Douce

18 notes

Au cours des dernières décennies, le droit international a connu des développements majeurs afin de tenir compte des multiples facettes que revêt la gestion et la protection des eaux douces. L’adoption d’instruments universels, régionaux et de bassins souligne l’importance d’étudier l’évolution de la réglementation internationale relative à l’eau et d’identifier les grands principes en ce domaine. Aussi, ce cours vise à offrir les bases nécessaires pour appréhender et examiner la régulation qui s’applique eaux douces transfrontières notamment aux fleuves, aux lacs et aux aquifères. Il présente les principes et les normes juridiques qui régissent l’utilisation, le partage, la gestion et la protection de ces ressources. Le MOOC est composé de 5 modules pouvant être visualisés dans un ordre quelconque, car abordant chacun un thème différent. Cependant, l’ordre des modules suit une certaine logique pédagogique et facilite la compréhension du MOOC pour des personnes ne connaissant pas le sujet. Chaque module s’accompagne d’un questionnaire d’évaluation/quiz. Le MOOC suivra un parcours unique donnant droit à un certificat pour les apprenants ayant obtenu une moyenne supérieure à 80% aux quiz. A la fin du cours, l’apprenant sera à même entre autres : 1) de décrire les enjeux liés à la régulation des eaux douces transfrontières ; 2) d’expliquer l’évolution de la réglementation internationale relative aux eaux douces transfrontières ; 3) de rappeler et d’interpréter les principes et les règles qui régissent la régulation des ressources en eau ; 4) de comprendre le rôle des mécanismes de règlement des différends liés aux eaux douces transfrontières dans le développement du droit international de l’eau douce (ou de comprendre le rôle des cours et tribunaux internationaux dans la résolution des conflits sur l’eau douce) Ce MOOC a été développé par la Plateforme pour le droit international de l’eau douce qui fait partie du Pôle Eau de Genève. Il a été accompagné par la Cellule MOOC de l’Université de Genève. A côté des chercheurs et des enseignants de la Plateforme, plusieurs experts internationaux ont également participé. Ce MOOC fait partie des trois cours soutenu par le Pôle Eau Genève et l’Université de Genève en compagnie des MOOCs en « Gestion et politique de l’eau » (www.coursera.org/learn/gestioneau) et en « Services écosystémiques : une méthode pour le développement durable » (www.coursera.org/learn/ecosystem-services). Ce cours est financé par le Programme Global Eau de la Direction du développement et de la coopération suisse (DDC).

À partir de la leçon

Module 1: Introduction au droit international de l'eau douce

Avec environ deux soixante-seize (276) cours d'eau et lacs, et un grand nombre d’eaux souterraines partagées par deux ou plusieurs États, l’intérêt et l’importance du droit international en ce domaine deviennent de plus en plus cruciaux. Ce module introductif vise à souligner en quoi la règlementation internationale constitue un outil fondamental pour assurer une gestion harmonieuse et pacifique de ces ressources indispensables à la vie humaine. Il présente les différents enjeux et défis liés à la gestion et la protection des ressources en eau. L’accent est mis sur les facteurs pouvant favoriser les conflits mais il est également démontré comment l’eau peut constituer un instrument de paix et de coopération entre les États. Nous nous intéressons dans cette perspective aux bénéfices que les États peuvent tirer de la coopération sur les eaux douces transfrontières.Des séquences sont aussi consacrées à l’analyse des différentes utilisations liées à la ressource en eau et des rapports qui existent entre elles. Un quiz clôturera ce module et équivaudra à 15% de la note finale. Pour le réussir, vous devez avoir au moins 80% de réponses correctes.

1.3.1. La pluralité des utilisations des ressources en eau douces transfrontières7:56

1.3.2. Les caractéristiques des conflits d’utilisation10:18

1.3.3. Cas pratique : conflit d’utilisation sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine/Uruguay)11:24

Rencontrer les enseignants

Laurence Boisson de Chazournes
Professor
Department of Public International Law and International Organization, Faculty of Law
Makane Moïse Mbengue
Professor
Faculty of Law and Institute of Environmental Sciences
Mara Tignino
Reader
Department of Public International Law and International Organization, Faculty of Law
Komlan Sangbana
Associate Researcher
Faculty of Law and Institute of Environmental Sciences

[MUSIC]

[MUSIC] Hello.

The case of the Pulp Mills along the Uruguay River is

an emblematic case in the field of environmental protection.

This case, brought against Uruguay by Argentina, was taken

before the International Court of Justice in 2006.

The case concerns the authorization given for the

construction and commissioning of two pulp mills.

The first plant was called CMB and was proposed

by the Spanish company ENCE. Work was halted by

the company in November 2006, when

Argentina's petition to the International Court of Justice was under consideration.

Meanwhile, the second plant proposed by the Finnish company, Botnia,

was put into service in November 2007, when the

case was being considered by the International Court of Justice.

So I would like to present three points about this case.

The first point is linked to the violation of procedural obligations

of the Statute of the Uruguay River.

The second point concerns the violation of

substantive obligations of the Statute.

And for the third point, I will share

some recent developments in the Pulp Mill case.

With regard to the first point - the breach of procedural obligations,

it is interesting to note that the Court began its analysis of this case

by making a distinction between these two obligations.

It is in the first paragraphs of this case,

the Court asserts that there is a functional link between

procedural obligations and substantive obligations.

The Court defined the Statute of the river as

a comprehensive and innovative regime in which obligations

(procedural and substantive) complement each other perfectly.

With that said however, the Court also affirmed that

this functional link does not prevent each State from being

responsible for violating an obligation within a single category.

In this case, it can be seen that whilst Uruguay was

deemed to be in breach of procedural obligations,

however, they did comply with its substantive obligations.

Therefore, if we analyse the substantive obligations,

I would like to highlight the role that the Court gives to the

Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay, CARU,

and its central role in the implementation of the statutory obligations.

CARU is not only an information sharing channel between

the two countries, but rather is the joint institutional mechanism

which allows the implementation of the primary objective of the Statute of the River Uruguay,

which relates to the optimal and rational use of the river.

Once the central role of CARU was affirmed,

the court examined certain provisions of the Statute.

I would like to point to Article 7.

In these provisions it reads that the Parties, Argentina and Uruguay,

must provide information that is relevant to these two projects to the Commission.

CARU will take a decision within a deadline of 30 days

as to whether the project can have an adverse effect on

navigation, the régime of the river or water quality.

If CARU does not make a decision, the Statute of the

River Uruguay refers to these obligations as Article 7

detailing that any Party planning an activity on the river must

provide information about the essential aspects of the project,

including the technical data of the activity in question.

Here the International Court of Justice asserts that Uruguay did not

keep CARU informed about this project.

Indeed, Uruguay and Argentina negotiated

the implementation of these two projects outside

of the framework of the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay.

However, the Statute gave CARU a central role.

To recap the three points. Violations of

procedural obligations are linked to the central role of CARU,

the violation of the obligations to share information

within the Commission and the violation of the obligations to

notify about the technical data relating to this planned activity.

The second point concerns the

violation of obligations of a substantive nature.

The Court analyses the first article of the Statute which

relates to the optimal and rational use of the river's waters.

And this optimal and reasonable use of the river

must be approved though the joint institutional mechanism, CARU.

These provisions were formulated in

general terms and this did not enable the Court to reach

a conclusion on the violation of these provisions.

A very important point in this case is how Article 41

of the Statute on the prevention of pollution was analysed.

What is interesting here is the Court's

evolutionary interpretation of these provisions.

Indeed, the Court examines this article in light of a

a practice widely used by States,

which is the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment study.

The recognition of the customary nature

of the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment study

is highly significant for the development

of international water law and international environmental law.

Once the general scope of this obligation was recognised, the

Court took a step back by stating that international law,

(at least the instruments applicable to Argentina and Uruguay)

do not specify the content of the environmental impact assessment study.

Therefore, for example, the Court analysed the choice of location of the

plant saying that Uruguay did conduct studies

to assess the plant's location.

Another significant element particularly important to me,

is the fact that the Court asserts that there is no general obligation

to undertake a onsultation with the local population.

So, very briefly, the Court reaches this conclusion by

affirming that according to the instruments invoked by Argentina,

it can not be concluded that this obligation was breached

and the Court also asserts that, in any event,

in this case, in any case, Uruguay would undertake

these consultations with the concerned populations in Argentina and Uruguay.

So we can see here a separation of

obligations of a procedural and substantive nature.

I repeat that Uruguay was held responsible

for a violation of procedural obligations.

However, the Court did not conclude that

water quality was affected by the

pulp mill put into service in 2007, the Botnia plant.

Following on from this analysis of the 2010 judgement of the International Court of

Justice on the case of the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, I would like to

mention some developments in the case which occurred in the years,

in the months that followed the judgment, in September 2010,

A few months after the Court's decision,

the two presidents of Argentina and Uruguay signed an

agreement on the exchange of information between the two countries and as a result,

a committee of experts from Argentina and Uruguay was established.

This allowed the Argentinian experts to visit

sites and review any potential impact

that the Botnia plant may have on water quality.

Another development in the case of the pulp mills

occurred in 2013, when the factory decided to increase

the quantity of pulp produced annually by the plant,

from one million tonnes of pulp produced per year to 1.3 million tonnes

of pulp.

Once again, Uruguay did not go through CARU

but presented Argentina with a fait accompli.

[MUSIC]

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play