OCR Text |
Show -1*3 VII The Use of Systems of International Waters Under Customary International Law That a state is sovereign, i.e. has exclusive jurisdiction or control within its boundaries is an admitted doctrine of international relations. However, to the extent that sovereignty has come to imply that there is something inherent in the nature of states that makes it impossible for them to be subjected to law, it is a doctrine which is not supported by the facts of international relations. If sovereignty were not subject to international law, the result would be international anarchy. The view that a state has under existing international law the sovereign legal right (as distinguished from physical power) to use as it chooses the parts of a system of international waters while within its territory, is tantamount to a view that there is no international law except treaty law - that a state is subject only to such obligations as it has expressly agreed to. Under this view a state would have no legal obligations to its co-riparians with regard to a system of international waters, or any other matter, until it had become a party to treaties with them. That this view is false is demonstrated by the fact of international relations that sovereignty is restricted by principles accepted as customary international law, in accordance with which the International Court of Justice, or other international tribunal, would pronounce judgment. 'The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: ... (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law It is accepted legal doctrine that the existence of customary rules of international law, i.e. of practices accepted as law, may be inferred from similar provisions in a number of treaties . Well over one hundred treaties which have governed or today govern systems of international waters have been entered into all over the world. These treaties indicate that there are principles limiting the power of statos to use systems of international waters without regard to injurious effects on neighbouring states. These treaties restrict the freedom of action of at least one, and usually of both or all, of the signatories with regard to waters within their respective jurisdictions. The number of states parties to these treaties, their spread over both time and geography, and the fact that in these treaties similar problems are resolved in similar ways, make of these treaties persuasive evidence of law-creating interna tional 1. See, e.g. the Wimbledon case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 1, p. 25; Crichton v. Samos Navigation Co., Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1925-26, p.3; Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflict, p. 135 (195*0 • |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |