[MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] Finally, in this section I will tell you about the specificities of the laws related to transboundary aquifers as enshrined in the draft articles adopted by the ICL. I have divided this sequence into three parts. First we have the scope of the draft articles, then the general principles and finally the specific principles. The section on scope includes two articles. The first deals specifically with scope and the second deals with definitions. Scope includes the use of transboundary aquifers and measures of protection and preservation as well as management practices. The draft articles includes the article on scope set out in the 1997 Convention. However, in addition to the transboundary aquifer and protection measures, the article on scope includes an additional paragraph concerning activities which have an impact on or are likely to have an impact on these aquifers. For this, I remind you about the first sequence relating to the importance of knowledge, and the importance of activities taking place at ground level which impact groundwater, aquifers. These activities are unrelated to the use of the aquifer itself, but may have an impact on it such as pesticides from agriculture or output from industry. I mentioned in the second sequence that the choice to include the term aquifer in the draft articles instead of simply groundwater, had consequences, and that is the consequence. When you consider the aquifer you have to to manage all the activities that may have an impact on the aquifer. The next article deals with definitions. It defines the term aquifer. I will not go into that here. You can read in the draft articles, but the definition of the term aquifer is one of the most complex articles to be adopted because a definition had to be found which satisfied both hydrogeologists and lawyers. Definitions that are truly hydrogeological were too complicated for lawyers but simplifying wasn't an option because the sense of what an aquifer is needed to be retained. So it's a compromised definition but it illustrates the difficulty of finding a common language but also the necessity to find a common language. Because ultimately who will manage the aquifer? Its not going to be the lawyer. Ultimately, the lawyer must work with hydrogeologists and follow what the hydrogeologists advise. So there is the importance of finding a common understanding between different scientific disciplines. Following this introduction on the scope and definitions, the draft articles focus on general principles which includes a codification of the principle of reasonable and equitable use and the obligation to not cause significant harm. These are the principles central to international water law but applicable to transboundary aquifers. Before these articles, the draft articles include an article on sovereignty. There is no equivalent article on this in the 1997 Convention nor in that of 1992 and its inclusion in the draft articles had been highly criticised. It was even said that it implied a return to the doctrine of absolute sovereignty, a return to the Harmon doctrine. In short, much was written on this article. The explanation of why this article appears comes from the States themselves. The States make regular comments throughout the codification process. It is something that came up very often in the comments from States referring to the General Assembly resolution adopted on the Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources. Moreover, the preamble to the draft articles referred to this resolution. And also, the very fact of codifying the aquifer, that too, has a consequence. When the aquifer is codified, reference is made to its geological formation, and therefore to territory, and as soon as anything affects a State's territory, sovereignty becomes an issue. This is the reaction from international law. So, what does Article 3 say about sovereignty? It says that the State can exercise sovereignty over the portion of the aquifer or of a transboundary aquifer system located within its territory, but there is still a limit to how this sovereignty is exercised. The State can exercise sovereignty only in accordance with international law and the present articles. In fact, the draft articles of the Commission codified sovereignty but limited sovereignty to that which is accepted in international law. and in international water law in particular. There is no return at all to the principle of absolute sovereignty. So then, in relation to equitable and reasonable use, the draft articles sought to apply this concept to the specificities of the aquifers and draws on concepts that are not part of the 1997 Convention such as the idea of a comprehensive management plan considering present and future needs. We should remember that in the case of certain aquifers, water is non-renewable. So every drop of water which is used, is not replaced and here we need to consider future generations. The resource needs to be preserved for as long as possible, hence the need for comprehensive management plans. Likewise, the notion of equitable and reasonable use involves an obligation for protection. As in the 1997 Convention, the draft articles included articles relevant to the application of this principle. And as in the 1997 Convention, it is a non-exhaustive list given in no order of priority. As for the obligation to not cause significant harm, States are required to adopt appropriate measures to avoid causing significant damage when using an aquifer, but we always return to the notion of activities that may have an impact on the aquifer. So even in the context of these activities, States are required to take the necessary measures to avoid significant harm to the State sharing the aquifer. And there is also a special mention to the States in the spill area who also need to be protected from any significant harm. Finally, the specific principles concern the protection of aquifers, the protection of ecosystems which depend on aquifers or are within the aquifers themselves. We have a fairly significant clause dealing with this. It is a rather important article on the protection of the recharge and spill zones which may be in a different condition from the aquifer. So here, the State's involvement is beyond the aquifer itself but this involvement is necessary because these zones are very fragile and very significant. We also have a very important article on monitoring. Here, I'll return to what I explained in the first sequence about the importance of knowledge. Monitoring helps to improve and develop knowledge about how the water changes, what is happening, is there too little, is there too much, it is polluted etc. So it's monitoring on an ongoing basis. Each State may do its own monitoring and exchange data with the other aquifer. When cooperation develops, obviously the draft articles recommend States establish joint monitoring. Finally, the draft articles included other articles about joint management, to establish joint management mechanisms. In these various provisions we have the usual measures in case of emergencies or for security and others. We have an article on cooperation to help developing States either through developed States, or through international organizations, which we do not find in the 1997 Convention. And this is obviously because aquifers require knowledge or technical means which are much more advanced than for other structures. So with these three sequences, I hope to have given you an insight into the law of transboundary aquifers and its specificities, but also the difficulties of applying the law as a result of dealing with an invisible resource. ​[MUSIC]