4.2.2. La lutte contre la pollution des ressources eau

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 4: Les principes du droit relatif aux eaux douces transfrontières II

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.

4.2.1. La contribution des accords multilatéraux sur l'environnement à la protection et la gestion des ressources en eau6:27

4.2.2. La lutte contre la pollution des ressources eau8:01

4.2.3. L'eau et les changements climatiques8:24

4.2.4. Les Chartes de l'eau en Afrique: outil innovant de protection de l'environnement aquatique6:50

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.

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

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