WSP11122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o w ... tv . . r-- I t iii ground waters materially affect the quality of waters delivered at the boundary. 2. Apa1.t from the 1944 treaty, we think that if the question were presented to an international tribu- nal the United States would probably be held responsible under customary international law for pollution caused by the Wellton-Mohawk drainage if it is shown that substantial damage has been caused thereby. Based upon the decision of the arbitral tribunal in the Trail Smelter Arbitration a~ well as certain quasi-interna- tional decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and other authorities of less stature, we think that if the question were presented to an international tribunal for arbitration or adjudication it is probable that a nation would be held responsible under customary international law for artificial pollution of an interna- tional stream if substantial damage is caused thereby. Although there appears to be no settled definition as to what constitutes pollution, we think the artificial extrac- tion of highly saline groundwaters and the subsequent collection and discharge of such waters into a tributary of the Colorado River would be. considered pollution if it were shown that the quality of waters arriving at the boundary were materially affected thereby. While customary international law may be modified by provisions of a treaty, we think that such provisions must clearly express such a modification and that the provisions of Articles 10 and 11 of the 1944 treaty do not authorize pollution of the Colorado River. 3. We think that Mexico is entitled to pursue a remedy in this situation either by requesting ar- bitration under the Inter-American Arbitration Treaty of 1929 or by seeking adjudication of the matter in the International Court of Justice. In the event that negotiations between the two countries do not result in a satisfactory solution, we think the.