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

48

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF rNTERNATI'ONAL LAW

[Vol. 53

N
'-'J
U1
c.n

efl'ect upon it of the proposed change. The Tribunal stated the rule in
these terms:

The State exposed to the repercussions of works undertaken by a
neighboring State is the only judge of its own interests, and if the
neighboring State has not taken the initiative, the right of the other
to exact information on the works or concessions which form the object,
of a project could not be denied. [Authors' translation.] ..

The right to receive appropriate and correct information on the existing
regime and probable changes to be efl'ected in a common river is co'
terminous with the fundamental duty to respect a riparian's legitimate
interests. No co-riparian can evaluate the full extent of its rights without
such information."
6, The method of safeguarding a co-riparian's interests was also indi-
cated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal speaks of "the rules of good faith."
These require that the consultations and negotiations be genuine--not
formalities. In the words of the Tribunal:

The upstream State has, under the rules of good raith, the obligation
to consider the difl'erent interests in question, to attempt to give them,
all satisfactions consistent with the pursuit of its own interests and
to demonstrate a real solicitude to reconcile the other riparian's
interests with its own. [Authors' translation.]"

Though the appreciation or the fulfillment of this duty is a delicate matter
in the opinion or the Tribunal, "the judge is in a position to proceed to
this appreciation on the basis of the data supplied by the negotiations."
[Authors' translation.] ..
7. The rules of reason and good faith as substantive law governing the
sharing of uses of international rivers were applied by the Tribunal to
procedural rights and duties:

As a matter of form, the upstream State has, procedurally, a right of
initiative; it is not obligated to associate the downstream State with
the elaboration of its projects. If, during the conversations, the down-
stream State submits other projects, the upstream State must examine
them, but it has the right to prefer the solution indicated by its
project, if such project takes into consideration in a reasonable manner
the interests of the downstream State. [Emphasis added; authors'
translation,] ..

8. Subjecting the regime of a river to more human control and with-
drawals of some supplies from the basin are not necessarily irreconcilable

46 Sentenoe at 59. See note 44 above.
41 Principle V of the Statement of Principles of Law of the Committee_ on the Uses
of Waters of, International Rivers of the American Branch of the I.L.A. reads:
ItV. A riparian may not unreasonably withhold froni a eo.riparian, or'refuse to give
it access to, data relevant to the determination or observanee of their respective rights
and duties under the existing regime of the system of international waters, or data 'with
respect to any proposed change in the regime.". (Principles . . . American Committee,
(}p. oit. note 21, above, at xii. See also the commentary on Principle V, ibid. at 9-12.)
48 Sentenoe at 59-60. See note- 44 above.
.. Ibid. at 60. 50 Ibid. at 61. See note 44 above.

- ii.~

.' -_~,;'''''d: :.,;."