OCR Text |
Show -Ill- flow through the territory of the other or serve as boundaries between them, the two High Contracting Parties undertake not to carry out or be a party to any constructional work calculated to change their natural course or to affect the water derived from their sources. This provision shall not be so interpreted as to deprive either of the two states of the right to make just and equitable use, within the limits of their respective territories, of the said rivers and streams for the irrigation of the land or for other agricultural and industrial purposes ^. 7. Multilateral: Convention of Geneva Relating to the Development of hydraulic Power Affecting More Than One State, 1923. This Convention was adopted by the Second International Conference of Communication and Transit held at Geneva in 1923. The Treaty was entered into by Austria, Belgium, British Empire, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Free City of Danzig, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Yugoslavia, Thailand (Siam) and Uruguay. It has been ratified or adhered to by: Great Britain, Denmark, Greece, New Zealand, Thailand (Siam), Newfoundland, Hungary, Iraq, Panama, and Danzig. That limitations are acknowledged to be imposed by existing international law appears unequivocally from the statement in Article I that states are free to carry out in their territory operations for the development of hydraulic power "within the limits of international law". The Convention also prescribes joint studies in order to arrive at solutions most favorable to the interests of the states concerned as a whole. Projected works are to give due regard to existing works, and those under construction or already projected. Construction by upper riparians is subject to the principle of reasonableness and to agreement whenever a state 'desires to carry out operations...which might cause serious prejudice". The Indus (Rau) Commission said that if this Convention may be regarded as typical, "it would seem to be an international recognition of the general principle that inter-State rivers are for the general benefit of all the States through which they flow irrespective of political frontiers" 3. 1. 105 L.N.T.S. 223. Z, Discussed below, pp. 128 - 130. y. I Report of the Indus Comm,, p. 22 (19^2). |
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] : |