[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