|
<br />t]~<t\if;~~~
<br />
<br />-:' "'f."{
<br />
<br />1959J
<br />
<br />ADJUDICATION rN INTERNATIONAL RIVER DrSPUTES
<br />
<br />39
<br />
<br />,;' ~
<br />
<br />:-:~~,<:. :.,:
<br />
<br />,,'
<br />
<br />tv
<br />Co')
<br />."'-'"
<br />0)
<br />
<br />whether the project with all the concessions made by the French required
<br />the agreement of Spain:"
<br />The effect of an obligation to ,arbitrate in bringing the parties e10ser
<br />together in the Lake Lanoux Case must to an extent be surmised. There
<br />is, however, an instance where officers of one of the parties to an inter-
<br />national river dispute gave public expression as to the effect of a commit-
<br />ment to arbitrate. The statements were made by a State Department
<br />lawyer and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
<br />The opinion of the lawyer was given in response to questions put by Sen-
<br />ators considering consent to the ratification of a treaty settling differences
<br />that had arisen with Mexico Over the distribution of waters of the Rio
<br />Grande and Colorado rivers.
<br />The treaty provided for the United States to guarantee delivery to
<br />Mexico of a supply of water in excess, of the amount believed by some of
<br />the Western States to be necessary. The amount was less than was then
<br />flowing into Mexico, The attorney of the State Department pointed out
<br />that if Mexico put this to beneficial use, it might acquire rights to more
<br />water than it had accepted in the negotiations." Certain of the Senators
<br />took the position that the United States, being upstream and not com-
<br />mitted to arbitrate, could not be injured by the Mexican assertion of
<br />rights. They argued that a Senate reservation to the 1929 Inter-American
<br />Arbitration Treaty excused the United States from giving Mexico an op-
<br />portunity to test its rights. The attorney of the State Department ex-
<br />
<br />
<br />~';i~~~~2~,~,~
<br />
<br />",:' -
<br />;<;~f:,J,'-'
<br />
<br />;ii
<br />
<br />,.,.":-- ./~J(~~;-
<br />, "}\!;f~
<br />
<br />~-" "'~-'.;<''''''';'
<br />"".-1,''';-'' "
<br />, '," ,~-
<br />
<br />.,
<br />
<br />"c-."
<br />
<br />
<br />"'-.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />24 After yeara of intermittent negotiations, which began in 1917, and after delays
<br />owing to the second World War, France and Spain reached a' standstill agreement in
<br />1949 during a meeting of the ltlnternationaI Commission of the Pyrenees." It was
<br />decided to establish a t I Mixed Commission of Engineers" the task of which was to
<br />study the possibility of solutions open to the parties. France and Spain agreed, as
<br />part of the proceedings of the International Commission of the Pyrenees, not to make
<br />changes in the regime of their common' waters until further agreement. The duration
<br />of this agreement became a matter of dispute in the arbitral proceedings. During the
<br />work of the Mixed Commission a first project was examined which proposed the resti-
<br />tution of only 1200 liters per second, from May 1 to Sept. 30, and 600 liters per
<br />second from Oct. I to April BO, and the indemnification of users whose needs might
<br />not be met by these allocations.' In 1954 France offered to make full restitution. In
<br />November, 1955, France offered further to guarantee a delivery of an annual volume
<br />of 20 million cubic meters of water and to permit the Mixed Commission to check on
<br />all construction phases, the regularity of restitutions, and to allow a representative
<br />of Spain with consular status to have access to all the works at any time in order to
<br />assure himself that the French pledge was being properly administered and carried out.
<br />In February, 1956, France conceded further the possibility of 'regulating the return of
<br />the waters in such a way as to increase their availability to Spain in periods of greater
<br />need and to establish a reserve for the benefit of Spain during dry years. Agreement
<br />having proved impossible, the two countries decided to submit the dispute to arbitra-
<br />tion in May, 1956;: a compromis was signed in November, 1956., In Septem-ber, 1956,
<br />the French Ambassador at Madrid announced that France would undertake to maintain
<br />the status quo until a. deeision was reached by the Arbitral Tribunal.
<br />215 Statem.ent by Benedict M. EnglishJ Assistant to the Legal Adviser of the Depart-
<br />ment of State, in Hearings before the Senate Oommittee on Foreign Relations on Treaty
<br />with Mexico Relating to the Utilization of Waters of Oertain Rivers, 79th Cong., 1st
<br />Sess., Pt. 5, pp. 1738-1752 (1945),
<br />
<br />~;''', '
<br />
<br />'-'.,,'
<br />
<br />;"'.
<br />
<br />^,~'
<br />, " ~,;.'
<br />:K~';:.;"."
<br />:"~';_. .!l'.; ,-', n
<br />"'-'. >,
<br />
<br />'..:~>,',t.
<br />,'>,,_',~;:_ ',::: ,,:;;:.::~c;;
<br />,:",",' >,",_",,/<'
<br />
<br />
<br />" i' .,_::. ,~.
<br />
<br />I.St,
<br />
<br />" ,.';
<br />
<br />"",".' -.
<br />:.~:;~f:',. .....
<br />
<br />'::,'
<br />
<br />l,:-":;. .'
<br />
<br />
<br />. ?"i~ iI".
<br />
<br />~<, ~<
<br />
<br />.-,;
<br />
<br />, ".:.,
<br />
<br />.~-,;/j'
<br />
<br />.~: ,.
<br />
<br />,'. ';~ ,..<
<br />
<br />",-'
<br />
<br />-.t:;:i
<br />
<br />...'i
<br />
<br />':i'<
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />"
<br />
|