3.3.2. Procédures d'enclenchement et de déroulement des consultations et négociations en cas de mesures projetées

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 3: Les principes du droit relatif aux eaux douces transfrontières I

Ce module explique le contenu des principes généraux qui régissent le partage des eaux et de la réglementation relative aux mesures projetées sur les eaux douces transfrontières. Il rappelle les fondements théoriques et le contenu du principe de l’utilisation équitable et raisonnable, de l’obligation de ne pas causer de dommages significatifs et du principe de coopération. Les contours des règles relatives à la notification, à la consultation et à la négociation en cas de mesures projetées sont examinés. L’interaction entre ces principes sera aussi présentée. Un quiz clôturera ce module et équivaudra à 25% de la note finale. Pour le réussir, vous devez avoir au moins 80% de réponses correctes.

3.3.1. Objectifs et modalités de mise en oeuvre de l'obligation de notification des mesures projetées8:52

3.3.2. Procédures d'enclenchement et de déroulement des consultations et négociations en cas de mesures projetées8:27

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]

[MUSIC] Hello.

The previous sequence dealt with the obligation to notify and

we saw how, in the case of a planned measure, the State proposing the measure

must notify the other riparian States.

This happens when a State considers that a project is likely to cause

significant damage to another State.

A deadline is set within which the notifying State

has to study the planned measures,

assess the effect and provide a response to the notifying State.

Two scenarios may arise.

The first scenario is that the notified State gives its consent.

In this case, the notifying State may

continue without any type of procedure.

But the second scenario is that the notified State

rejects the proposal.

In this case, the State proposing the contested measure must

enter into consultations or even negotiations with the objecting State.

How do these consultations and negotiations work?

That is the question that we will address in this sequence.

The practice of consultation and negotiation assumes that

when an activity is likely to have transboundary effects, it is accepted that

the State proposing the measure must consult with the other States,

in good faith and in a timely manner.

This process is designed to provide all parties with an opportunity to find

acceptable solutions to prevent significant transboundary harm

or, at least, to minimize the risk of damage.

In this respect, the duty to consult and negotiate is

actually an obligation of prevention.

The principle is reflected in many international instruments,

in particular Article 17 of the New York

Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses.

Before examining how the obligation to consult

and negotiate is implemented,

it is necessary to clarify the terminology.

Indeed, the terms “consultation” and “negotiation” generally go hand in hand

in treaty provisions. However, in international water law practice,

each carries a unique meaning.

In water treaties, parties refer to the term

“consultation” before a dispute has arisen and

refer to the term “negotiation” only if needed.

In other words, the consultation phase offers the opportunity to identify

potential disagreements between States.

It is once these disagreements have been identified that the negotiation phase

is engaged.

If problems can be resolved in the initial

consultation phase, there would be no need for follow-up

negotiations.

Now that you have the terminology,

lets look at the different ways that the

obligation to consult and negotiate is implemented and

the process for conducting consultations and negotiations.

Article 17, paragraph 1 of the 1990 New York Convention

details the rules which are applied

to the consultation and negotiation process.

Under that article, if the State that was notified about the planned measure

concluded that the

planned measure is likely to cause significant damage,

then the notifying State and the affected State will enter into consultations,

to resolve the situation in an equitable manner.

Within this provision, it is the objection by the

notified State against the planned measures

which has triggered the consultation and negotiation process.

Two points need to be made about this.

The first remark is the following: in order for the

consultation and negotiation process to begin, the notified State

must expressly dispute the planned measures to the notifying State.

The objection cannot be implied.

The second remark is that the

affected State must justify its disagreement.

International law does not state whether

such consultations and negotiations need to

take place in a formal or informal setting.

In general, the framework is the same as that in which

notification took place.

This can be in a bilateral or a multilateral context.

If the framework is not defined, consultations and negotiations

are subject to certain conditions.

They must respect the principle of good faith,

the cornerstone of relationships between States.

This requirement is set out in Article 17, paragraph 2 of the

1997 New York Convention.

The procedure for exchanging views

in the consultation process has been clarified in case-law

beginning with the Lake Lanoux case, between France and Spain.

In this case, having acknowledged the obligation to consult,

the tribunal stressed that the consultation process

must be genuine and not

only a formality in order to learn about the objections,

protests or regrets presented by the downstream State.

Therefore,

the State of origin, according to the rules of good faith, is obliged to consider

the different interests involved and attempt to address them in a

manner that is compatible with its own interests.

Similarly, in the case of the Pulp Mills on the River

Uruguay between Argentina and Uruguay, the International Court of

Justice considered that, on the basis of the principle of good faith, the parties

were obligated to undertake meaningful negotiations.

A question comes up here: in the

consultation and negotiation process, is there an obligation to reach an agreement?

If no agreement is reached, does this mean that the planned measures cannot be implemented?

At this stage, it is necessary to have a correct understanding of the

notification, consultation and negotiation process.

It is intended to inform, exchange and, if necessary, carry out negotiations

in a way that is suitable for all.

It is not obligatory to reach an agreement with the notified State

or to seek their prior consent.

This question was at the heart of the Lake Lanoux case

between France and Spain.

The tribunal should, inter alia, answer the question of

whether the French Government had the right to carry out works

on Lake Lanoux without prior agreement with the Spanish Government.

For the arbitrators in the case, the existence of such an obligation would

equate to a veto restricting the

the sovereignty of States.

Prior agreement can only result from a treaty.

This is the case, for example, with the Charter of Waters of the Senegal River.

Article 24 of the Charter lays down the principle of prior agreement

for all projects that might significantly

affect the river system or its health.

Beyond conventional practice, the principle

is that once the deadline has expired,

if the notifying State has conducted the consultations and

negotiations in good faith, then the planned measures may proceed.

But, as the International Court of Justice has pointed out,

the State acts at its own risk.

In this case, States will have to resort to

diplomatic and judicial procedures to settle disputes

as prescribed by general international law.

To conclude,

remember that it is the objection formulated by the notified State that

triggers the consultation and negotiation process following the notification

of the planned measure.

This objection must be justified and expressly formulated.

Secondly, consultations and negotiations must be conducted

in good faith in order to give meaning to the proceedings.

However, the requirement of good faith does not mean

that an agreement has to be reached.

An important point to remember is that

the consultation and negotiation process have a preventive aim.

It defines the measures that can prevent or reduce

significant damage on a transboundary level.

[MUSIC] [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