MUSIC [MUSIC] Hello, Today we have the pleasure of being joined by Professor Lucius Caflisch. Professor Lucius Caflisch is an honorary professor at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. He is a member of the International Law Commission and he was a judge at the European Court of Human Rights. Welcome Professor Caflisch to our MOOC on International Water Law. My first question relates to the very first initiatives in international water law. >> The first initiative was undertaken by a professional group called the Institute of International Law and in its Salzburg Session of 1961, the commission, the Institute adopted a first resolution based on the work of Professor Andrassy, from the University of Zagreb. He was one of the great specialists in water law. This resolution planted the seed for what comes later. It included the principle of equitable and reasonable use which was not yet defined and there was still no criteria to determine equitable and reasonable use. However, the principle was there. The second thing that is important is what is not there. The rule which prevents one riparian State causing damage to another riparian State. This was the first major initiative. This major initiative of 1961 was followed by another initiative in 1966 by another professional association. This association was the International Law Association and you just have to look at who was part of the International Law Association and participated in the work of the Commission to realize that it is an extremely important instrument. I will mention with particular emotion an old friend Professor Baxter of Harvard University. With this resolution, there was progression. Not only do we find the principle of equitable and reasonable use but now there is a criteria to determine this in each individual case. The criteria was not exhaustive. We have criteria and among the criteria there is prior use by other States. Therefore, the two resolutions, the two texts have provided an excellent basis for the International Law Commission to continue the work and I do not think that it could have been done under such auspices if these two resolutions from these two associations had not already existed. So the role of these associations was important. Yes, my second question refers to this last point. What role do professional associations play in the codification of the international law of international watercourses. >> A very important role. Not only for international watercourse law. Without this work, I do not think that things would have progressed so well. And it is also good that professional associations have their say. But today we see that there are other areas in which the Institute of International Law works in liaison with the International Law Commission. An example is the project on the effect of armed conflicts on treaties and, there, the International Law Commission has partially adopted the resolution of the Institute of International Law. Perhaps it was because the two rapporteurs for this particular issue were both members of the the Institute of International Law and the International Law Commission. However, this will not be the case for the following subject the succession of States in respect of international liability and where the International Law Commission had delayed its work in order to see the results of the work of the Institute of International Law. So, they have great importance but do not forget that there is something else, too. There is conventional practice which is very important in this field and there is also the practice of certain States: Switzerland, Germany, the United States where we find, above all, the two principles, the right to equitable and reasonable participation and also the prohibition of damage. Thank you. I'll move on to my third question. What is your opinion, what is your view on the work of the International Law Commission and your experience of the plenary work of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly? So let us distinguish, I was not a member of the International Law Commission at that time. I can only say what I read in the minutes. In the minutes, I see that things as a whole progressed well albeit slowly, except for the competition between the principle of equitable use and the prohibition against causing harm, which in my view is a major handicap for the new Convention. And, oddly enough, the plenary working group of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly was in fact an international conference to negotiate this agreement. This negotiation was distorted by this problem. This problem is also reflected in the Convention. The Convention has entered into force, fortunately, but many States have not yet ratified it. Switzerland is one of these countries and I can tell you (as I was there) that this is the reason why. >> Thank you, Professor, for answering our three questions. >> It was a pleasure. MUSIC