[MUSIC] [MUSIC] Hello. In this sequence, we will examine the principles of international water law which are applicable to pollution control. The phenomenon of water pollution is no doubt as old as the first human settlements. Poor water quality has dramatic consequences on quality of life as well as on aquatic ecosystems and so appropriate solutions need to be put in place to preserve water resources. As a result, pollution was top of the list of issues which concerned international regulations on the use of transboundary freshwater for non-navigational purposes. What solutions have been developed by international law to combat pollution? Which international freshwater law principles are applicable to controlling the pollution of transboundary water resources? According to Article 21 (1) of the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, "pollution" is defined as any change which is detrimental to the composition or the water quality of an international watercourse as a direct or indirect result of human activities. In view of this definition, pollution in international water law is considered to be of human origin and not the result of nature. For example, toxic fumes from a volcanic eruption are not regarded as pollution within international law. Among the principles applicable to combat pollution, international freshwater law has placed prevention as a cornerstone in the fight against pollution. What does the principle of prevention entail in practice? The principle of prevention requires that the State behaves with due diligence, in other words, the State in whose territory the activities takes place has a duty to do its best to prevent these activities from causing significant damage. The most explicit formulation of the obligation is found in Article 21, (2) of the 1997 New York Convention. It details that States either separately or, where appropriate, jointly, must prevent, reduce and manage any pollution of an international watercourse which could cause significant damage to other States along the watercourse or their environment. Accordingly, the State has an obligation of means (and not of result). In other words, it is not required to guarantee absolutely there will be no damage from pollution but rather it will do its best to take measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution. The due diligence requirement has traditionally brought with it two additional sub-obligations. On the one hand, the State must permanently possess sufficient apparatus to ensure compliance with its international obligations. On the other hand, the apparatus must be used with a vigilance suitable to the circumstances. These two additional complementary obligations are considered as the minimum expected internationally from a good government. Several factors determine the State's obligation of due diligence. First, the level of due diligence may vary according to the level of risk associated with the activity or the pollutants discharged. In this case, the degree of due diligence is more rigorous for the most risky activities or for the most dangerous pollutants. In conventional practice, a list of such activities or substances is generally established. This is the case, for example, with the Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River. Annex 2 of the Convention provides a list of industrial sectors and substances deemed to be dangerous. Due diligence may also vary depending on the importance of the interest that must be protected. This factor is particularly important for aquatic resources because of how vital and sensitive they are. The International Court of Justice, in its judgement on the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, stressed that this vigilance and prevention are particularly important in the preservation of the ecological balance. Another interesting factor when calibrating due diligence is the level of development of the State in question. This factor implies that due diligence is dependent on how effectively control is exercised within a given territory. The logic behind considering the level of development is because a developing State can not exercise the same degree of vigilance as an industrialized State. In addition to due diligence, the obligation of prevention to pollution demands that the State complies with several other obligations. First, we will highlight the need to comply with the technical rules of prevention. These rules are generally intended to regulate hazardous substances being introduced into the watercourse. Among these rules, we can mention examples such as quality standards and emission standards. Incorporated in the water agreements, these rules or norms impose a specific behaviour on the State. The State is no longer required to take all necessary measures to ensure the quality of water, but it must avoid a certain concentration of pollutants in the watercourse. A second category of rules which contributes to pollution prevention concerns the procedural obligations of cooperation. We can cite the obligation to notify, consult and negotiate in the case of a planned measure, the obligation to exchange information or the obligation to conduct an environmental impact study. Whilst these obligations are not specific to pollution, they help to prevent pollution damage. In particular, they require the State to respect certain preventive procedures when undertaking any risky activities. A final category of rules that helps to prevent the pollution of transboundary water resources relates to the rules that place the responsibility on economic operators. Through these rules, the duty of prevention moves from States to non-State actors. It must be said that companies are responsible for much of the pollution of aquatic systems. As usual, the polluter-pays principle is among these rules. This principle encourages companies to invest in preventive measures with full knowledge that they will have to pay a significant price if they pollute. Placing responsibility on a company is better known by the term accountability. This rule states that private actors must adopt a certain behaviour, must act in a way that is transparent and accountable in the conduct of their activities. In conclusion, it should be noted that in the field of pollution control, international water law obligates a State to prevent it. As we have seen, several obligations need to be fulfilled in order to respect this duty, On the one hand, the obligation of due diligence requires the State to do its best to prevent pollution. On the other hand, both the State and economic operators have to behave in a certain way in order to prevent pollution. Specifying the behaviour of these actors is also part of a progressive precautionary approach. As part of the precautionary approach, uncertain risks need to be taken into account when defining measures to combat pollution. Technical and technological advances mean that there is an increased risk of permanent damage and prevention and precaution are necessary to protect transboundary freshwater and their ecosystems from pollution. MUSIC