[MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] One of the main objectives of international water regulation since the mid-twentieth century has been to codify the international rules of the management, use and protection of international watercourses. One of the first attempts of codification is seen in the famous 1966 Helsinki rules from the International Law Association, which helped identify the customary principles of international water law. After this first major attempt by the International Law Association at the UN International Law Commission, codification attempts have been made and these efforts, these attempts at codification gave rise, in 1997, to the famous New York Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses. This Convention is very important because, it is the first step towards the codification of principles of international water law. So, of course, not all States agree on whether all the principles contained in this Convention truly reflect customary international law, but it still remains an attempt at codification, a first universal effort, originating from the United Nations itself. However, the reluctance and controversy which characterizes some of the principles, including the customary nature of some of the principles contained in the Convention, meant that it took a long time to come into force. It took almost 17 years to achieve the 35 ratifications needed for its entry into force, but now it is done. Since 17 August 2014, this Convention has been in force and of course, this gives a certain impetus to the idea of ​​customary principles in the field of international water law. Many States will surely apply the Convention in the framework of their cooperation but also within the framework of basin agreements. The fact that this Convention has entered into force shows that there is some recognition from the international community about the importance of the principles contained in the Convention (whether they are considered customary or not). For the States which had already, who already adhered to this Convention, it is a confirmation, because, it should not be forgotten that before the Convention entered into force, there were several instruments of international water law, (in particular a number of basin agreements over the last 15 years) which already referred to the principles of customary international law as codified by the 1997 Convention. And so, for those States, this Convention was already seen as an instrument of codification and they can be reassured by that. Their position will be strengthened. Of course, there are challenges. There are major issues linked to this Convention. In my opinion, we should consider adopting protocols. Because, it should not be forgotten that this Convention is a framework agreement. If you look at the preamble of the 1997 Convention, it clearly states that it is a framework agreement, and it therefore only lays the foundation of an international régime and as such the principles contained in this Convention deserve to be clarified, to be elaborated. I am one of those who believe it would be useful to have certain protocols or annexes which clarify the content and extent of some of the rules contained in the 1997 Convention. But another challenge is an institutional challenge. That is, the secretariat responsible for the day-to-day administration of the 1997 Convention. There is still no consensus on this issue. UNEP, but also the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe would like to play the role of secretariat for this Convention. So we have to think about all the institutional mechanisms, because the Convention does not really put in place institutional mechanisms to administer and sustain this Convention. Ultimately a Convention is a living instrument, and which need to develop over time. In order to develop this Convention in practice, international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice are important mechanisms. In 1997, when the New York Convention was adopted, the Court had been really pioneering. In its judgement on the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case, the court had already referred to the 1997 Convention. So today, now the Convention is in force, the Court could give more importance to the principles contained in the 1997 Convention, not only by confirming their customary nature, but also by trying to clarify the content and the relationship between these different principles. Questions remain over the relationship between these different principles, and in particular the relationship between the equitable and reasonable use and the principle not to cause a significant damage to an international watercourse. And therefore I think that the entry into force should encourage international courts to refer to this Convention. It is true that during the years when it was not clear whether this Convention would enter into force. there was very little reference to the Convention by the international case law even though international courts and tribunals dealt with several disputes concerning international rivers. We hope that the entry into force will enable international tribunals to contribute to the development, to the interpretation of that 1997 Convention, but it is clear that the primary role will rest with the Parties. And so, a conference of the parties must be established similar to that found in the field of climate, so further decisions can develop and strengthen the 1997 Convention, which ultimately is a framework agreement. MUSIC