WSP11122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Q W CJ1 00 . . 40 I I: view of the treaty is substautiated by the numerous state- ments in hearings and in debate in the Senate indicating that Mexico was to receive water which has just been used for irrigation purposes in the United States. If interpretation of the 1944 treaty with respect to the question whether the United States should receive credit for groundwaters or" high salinity emanating from the Wellton-Mohawk project were presented to an international tribunal, it is well established that, unless the matter is clear beyond dispute from the terms of the treaty, such a tribunal would inquire into the intention of the parties. In this regard, international tribunals have referred to the preamble of a treaty in considering the intention of the parties.oo Additionally, two other rules of interpretation at times utilized by international tribunals in the construction of treaties seem appropriate with regard to the present situa- tion. It is said to be a rule of construction that where a provision of a treaty admits of ambiguity, the provision should be strictly construed against the party for whose I I : tiOll operations on the Wallton-Mohawk Project plus accretions to the aquifer under the project from underground sources and flows in the Gila River.'1 The panel further recommended that aU groundwater sl1oul(l be delivered a.s troaty water when "the quality of wator produced from the aquifer reasonahly approaches the quality of water from deep percolation from irriga- tion operations on the Wollton-Mohawk Project." W 0 think it was not contemplated that the United States would be credited with water which had percolatc(l beneath tho audace and which was there- after artificially extracted where clclivery or such waters materially in. ereases the salinity or waters delivered at the boundary above that of the last users in the United States. Accordingly, the guide shoul<lnot be quality of water whieh percolates beneath the surfaco due to irrigation operations but instead quality of water after being useel in normal irrigation operations. 00 E.g., Interpretation of the 1919 Convention Concerning Employment of Women During the Night, III Hudson, World Court R.cports. (1932-35) 99, 107; The Kronprins Gustaf Adolph (Sweden/U.S.A.), II U.N. R.cp. lnt'l Arb. Awards 1241, 12-56'; Pajzs, Csaky, Estorhazy Case, 8 Ann. Dig. of Public International Law Cases (1935-37) 452. See V Hackworth, Digest of International Law 245, and c-a..ses there cited. __..,.~~-~.~.~_~~~_m,__._-T~<---'- ,." ~. ----.~-~,...--"~-_.<---~""'"';'!'"