[MUSIC] [MUSIC] Alongside the diplomatic methods used to settle disputes, there are also judicial methods. When we talk about the judicial methods of dispute resolution, one may think of the involvement of a third party, a third party, a judicial third party, a court, a tribunal, who take binding decisions for the parties. This is the important feature of the judicial method of dispute resolution. The decision issued, decided, rendered by the third party, will be binding on the parties to a dispute. Among the judicial methods of settling a dispute, some are considered permanent, decisions are mandatory, and then there are the so-called ad hoc proceedings, that is to say, procedures such as arbitration, rules that are put in place to resolve a particular dispute. Before presenting these two judicial procedures, I would like to emphasize that States have always relied on judicial methods to resolve their water-related disputes. At the end of the 19th century, it was generally accepted by States that a judicial third party could assist them to resolve differences. With that noted, let us look at arbitration. What is arbitration? As I said, it is an ad hoc procedure, which relies heavily on the principle of autonomy. So, what does that mean? It means that the parties to a dispute will be able to choose the arbitrators in an arbitral tribunal, will be able to choose the procedure applied by the court. They will also be able to choose the law to be applied by the court. So there is a great emphasis on choice with this dispute resolution method. This procedure of arbitration has already been discussed and what is interesting is the number of tribunals that have been established to deal with matters relating to watercourses. So looking at my notes, I am thinking about a particular case, the case of the San Juan River, where a decision was taken at the end of the 19th century, or the Faber case, relating to navigation, also at the end of the 19th century. And then throughout the 20th century. We have already talked a great deal about this important case. The arbitral sentence in the 1957 Lake Lanoux case which settled the conflict of use between France and Spain. If you look, for example, at the role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. There was a dispute between Holland and France over pollution, compensation for pollution in the Rhine, and here again, the issue was settled by arbitration. I would like to talk about the importance of the arbitration procedure between a non-State group in Sudan and the Sudanese government, before South Sudan became independent, and an arbitration relating to the Abyei case (an area of Sudan). And in this context there are some very interesting remarks found in the award which dealt with issues of access to water by nomadic populations. So you can see, the arbitration procedure is used by States when they want to settle their conflicts. So next we have the judicial procedure, which is exercised by a permanent court. We have already talked about the Permanent Court of International Justice, established in 1920, or the International Court of Justice, a principal organ of the United Nations established through the United Nations Charter. And these two jurisdictions have dealt with a large number of cases related to water management. And here again, this shows how important the judicial procedure before the permanent courts is and how important it is in resolving conflicts between States. Then there are examples. We discussed the Oder case in the field of navigation. In the Oder case, the Permanent Court spoke of the concept of the community of interest. There is the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Dam case which we also discussed, the case of the Pulp Mills, and then currently, there is a case brought to the court by Chile against Bolivia over a certain water system. So these are the big cases but there are others that have been settled by these permanent courts. These permanent courts, the Permanent Court and then the International Court of Justice, have general jurisdiction. This means that any kind of dispute can be brought before these courts. However, I emphasize the general nature of this competence as opposed to the specialised competence of certain jurisdictions. And here, I would like to give you an example of the jurisdictions for the protection of human rights. So in this context, think of the European Court of Human Rights, think of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, or the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. The European Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have made very important decisions on issues linked to the right to water, access to water, including non-discrimination issues, the need to take special measures to ensure that indigenous peoples have access to water, and issues between water and the protection of the environment. And these jurisdictions foster an understanding of the law, clarify the scope of certain rules, such as the International Court of Justice who plays a very important role in terms of clarification and I was going to say, predicability of international water law. So, I draw your attention to these jurisdictional mechanisms, point out that they are used a great deal. So, of course, there is a whole section which deals with international economic law, investment arbitration, and trade agreements. Under the investment protection agreements, we see that there are more and more arbitral sentences linked to water protection or which link the protection of investments with water management and protection issues. Regarding trade in the World Trade Organization, questions will arise and these may be brought before these bodies. Therefore we see multiplicity, diversity of jurisdictions, ad hoc mechanisms, permanent mechanisms, all of which are used and have the trust of States to resolve a dispute over the protection and management of water. {0}Thank you."{/0} {1} {/1} [MUSIC] [MUSIC]