WSP08751

• File Number: 8271.300
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - General Information and Publications-Reports
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/1959
• Title: The Role of Adjudication in International River Disputes - The Lake Lanoux Case
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

46

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATroNAL LAW

[Vol. 53

4. The Tribunal resorted expressly to this substantive rule of reason
while construing the treaties between Spain and France!' One provision
which required notice of a change that might impair the rights of the 'C
co-riparian expressed as its object the safeguarding of "all the mterests," .. '

"Among other things our memorandum deals with this view and points out .that
international law, as it has developed in this field in recent years, has solidified the
principle of the equitable apportionment of waters which eross international boundaries.
The fundamental doctrine concerned is, of course, that of not using one's own property
rights to injure the property rights of others." (Statement of 'Frederick W. ,Jandrey,
Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State ror European Affairs, on Upper ColUmbia
River Development, April 21, 1958. Mimeographed Release of Dept. of State" p.' 3
[1958].)

The official endorsement of the substantive rule of reason on the part of the United
States is embodied in a set of principles appearing in the memorandum referred to by
Mr. Jandrey. See note 20 above.
Besides the evidence supplied by international praetice, the statements and resolutions
adopted by learned societies corroborate the rule of reason and to a remarkable ej:tent
parallel the ideas expressed by the Tribunal.
Almost, fifty years ago, the Institut de Droit International at its Madrid Confetence
in-1911, asserted that the dependence of riparian states upon each other "excludes the
idea of complete autonomy for either along that portion of the natural course coming
under its sovereignty." (See 24 Annuaire de I'Institut de Droit International 170 et
seq. [1911]; Declaration of Madrid, ibid. 365.) -
Several reports presented at the Seventh Inter-American Conference held at Monte-
video in 1933 show an unmistakable concurrence in the principle of equality of rtghts
of co-riparians. The principle was stated in what became known as 1;he Declarttion
of Montevideo. See Text of Declaration in Final Act of the Seventh International
Conference of American States, International Conferences of American States 8~89
(First Supp., 1933-19(0) (.Carnegie Endowment for _ International Peace, Wash:iIigton,
1940)..
Recently the Inter~American Bar Association at its Xth Conference in Buenos Aires
in November, 1957, unanimously adopted a resolution in which the principle of eq~lity
of rights of co.riparians is stated to. be existing international law. See p. 73 belo.w.
Support to the substantive rule of reason was given also by the International Law
Association (I.L'.A.) in 1956, in a resolution adopted as a basis for further study-.
See p. 74 below. A recent study conducted by a panel af experts 'for the United
Nations, an integrated river basin development, recommends that states adopt the I.L.A.
principles as a _sound approach in the negotiation ap.d settlement of international river
diBpute.. (Integrated River B""in Development 33 (U.N. Doc. E/3066), New York,
1968.)
The Forty-Eighth Conference of the International Law Association, meeting in ~ew
York Sept. 1-7, 1958, adopted unanimo.usly a minimum statement of (l Agreed Princivles
of International Law," in which it is stated that ". . . each eo.ripa-rian state is-: en-
titled to. a reasonable and equitable share in the beneficial uses of the waters of; the-
drainage basin." See note 36 above.
42 Immediately after outlining in broad terms the present status of international-law
as derived from" international practice" and the" conviction ,-, of states, the Tribunal
proposed to apply the principles specifically by saying: "This suggestion will be kept
in mind later in dealing with the question of establishing which obligations reat on
France and Spain co.ncerning contacts and negotiations prior to. putting into operatio.n
a project such as that of Lake Lanoux. [Authors' translation.] 7' (Sentence at 4:7.)
48 The provisio.n in question was Art. 11 of the Acta Additionnel of 1866, wJlich
provides that when either France or Spain intends to carry out works which' may cha;nge
the re.gime or the volume of boundary or successive watercourses whose waters are

- > ;,-.,/- ~

1

:~
i

-:%

.)'