5.2.1. Variété des modes diplomatiques de règlement des différends

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 5: Prévention et gestion des différends liés aux eaux douces transfrontières

Ce module présente les mécanismes diplomatiques et judiciaires de règlement des différends liés à l’eau. Le rôle essentiel des organismes et commissions de bassin dans la prévention et la résolution de conflits sur l’eau est également traité. Enfin, le contenu des décisions des tribunaux et cours internationaux en matière des ressources en eau partagées est exposé afin d’évaluer leur contribution au développement du droit international de l’eau douce. Un quiz clôturera ce module et équivaudra à 20% de la note finale. Pour le réussir, vous devez avoir au moins 80% de réponses correctes.

5.2.1. Variété des modes diplomatiques de règlement des différends8:58

5.2.2. Les modes judiciaires de règlement des différends7:40

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] Ladies and Gentlemen.

We are now going to discuss how disputes in the field of

water protection and management are settled.

So, we have looked at the rules of law that apply

in the field of water protection and management.

As you know, there may be disagreements between States,

a State or an individual or between two non-State actors over

how a rule is interpreted or applied

and this may give rise to disputes.

So the next question is how are these

international disputes settled within international law?

So I will say at the outset that the methods used to settle disputes

in the field of water management and protection, are not unique.

In fact, the methods used are the same as those used

in international law.

A good reference is Article 33

of the United Nations Charter, which includes a

non-exhaustive list of dispute settlement procedures.

So we will often differentiate between diplomatic and

jurisdictional methods

to resolve disputes.

The great difference between them is

that with diplomatic methods, the decision taken

is not binding for the parties, whereas with

judicial methods,

the decision is binding.

So, let us focus more on

the diplomatic methods for settling disputes.

What are they?

Well, there is negotiation, investigation, good offices, mediation or

conciliation and then sometimes people speak about facilitation.

All of these dispute settlement methods

in the field of water management and protection are applicable to member

States of the international community or parties to a dispute.

I will focus more on inter-State disputes but

in fact, these diplomatic methods

can also be applied to other types of dispute.

Firstly, we have negotiation.

So this is the most common method.

This is the most common method and the one most widely used.

States must attempt to reach a settlement in good faith

The principle

of good faith must be applied.

So, very often, negotiation

will take place or the attempt to negotiate will take place before

trying another dispute settlement method.

Or negotiation may occur following

an attempt to settle the dispute through jurisdictional means.

Take the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case as an example. The

Court had requested that negotiations are conducted according to the

1997 International Court of Justice’s judgement.

This is negotiation.

What must also be said about negotiation

in relation to transboundary waters, it only covered accidental pollution.

So we have an interesting example, that is the example of the case

of the Sandoz factory which in 1986

had a fire in the factory in Basel, and

the French side of the Rhine was particularly damaged.

Negotiations between different parties

ensured that the damage was taken into account and attempts of reparations were made to

address the victims' grievances.

Not only with the Sandoz factory but also in other

contexts, we see that these agreements are not based on

litigation, meaning that we are not talking about the legal responsibility of a

party or State, but rather we are talking about ex gratia liability,

Rather than looking at legal responsibility, we try to

identify the victims and the damage caused and to consider the measures which

would correct these damages, mitigate effects

and re-establish the good management of the international watercourse.

Alongside the most common method of negotiation,

is the method of good offices and mediation.

This involves the intervention of a third party who will facilitate a meeting

of two parties, give them hospitality.

This is commonly practiced by Switzerland who often

invites two parties to try to find a solution to a dispute.

Or mediation.

The third party (attempting reconciliation between positions) will propose a solution.

There are specific mediation profiles.

I would like to give the example

of the Indus Water Treaty, which states that only after the parties have

attempted to settle the matter via the Indus Commission can

they call on a neutral expert. The process of that neutral expert

is very much like mediation, but a particular type of mediation as the

neutral expert's report will be binding.

Here is an example of this being applied.

The 2006 Baghliar Dam case.

So negotiation, good offices, mediation, investigation.

The investigation procedure will also be considered

and there is a special sequence devoted to the

investigation procedure established by the 1997

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

This procedure has not yet been implemented but

could be used to settle a dispute.

Beside that, there is conciliation.

Conciliation is a more formalized procedure, based on the

principle of the equality of the parties and the adversarial principle which

resembles a judicial process but the outcome is not binding.

So the report of the conciliation commission must be taken

into account by the parties in a dispute in good faith

but it is not mandatory.

Then facilitation which is a term often used in my opinion,

to group together good offices and mediation,

where a third party will try to facilitate,

to bring the points of view closer together.

So you see, we have different types of mechanisms,

basin agreements, watercourse agreements that call for

negotiation but also include mediation procedures or

(and a special sequence will be devoted to this) foresee

that basin organizations can also attempt to reconcile

two riparian States who have differing views

of the rivers covered by the basin commission.

There are many types of mechanisms,

diplomatic methods which are used in practice,

and we can conclude that negotiation is the most important method.

I would like to say something, in conclusion, about negotiation.

Negotiation is the first method to be used

and is considered before resorting to another procedure.

It can also be considered after another procedure to try to find

agreement on a solution proposed by

the mediator or the conciliator or the judicial third party.

Negotiation (in the field of environmental protection,

in the field of international watercourse management)

has the virtue of considering the future.

As you know, riparian States have a very important role to play in

ensuring that a watercourse is well protected,

that an international watercourse is well managed.

So, very often, we will be able to resolve a dispute, look at the past,

look at what happened in terms of damage,

find corrective measures.

But very often, the future must be considered.

A monitoring procedure must be considered. An information collection procedure

must be considered. This is very important in watercourse management.

And negotiation, a negotiating agreement enables this.

A negotiating agreement may look at the past,

consider the present but it must also consider the future and that

this is a very important role of negotiation.

{0}Thank you."{/0} {1} {/1}

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