OCR Text |
Show -1U- Article 12. If a dispute arises between Contracting States as to the application of the present Statute, and if such dispute cannot be settled either directly between the Parties or by some other amicable method of procedure, the Parties to the dispute may submit it for an advisory opinion to the body established by the League of Nations as the advisory and technical organizations of the Members of the League in matters of communication and transit, unless they have decided or shall decide by mutual agreement to have recourse to some other advisory, arbitral or judicial procedure. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to any State which represents that the development of hydraulic power would be seriously detrimental to its national economy or security. A Protocol added to the Convention reads as follows: The provisions of the Convention do not in any way modifiy the responsibility or obligations, imposed on States, as regards injury done by the construction of works for development of hydraulic power, by the rules of international law. The present Protocol will have the same force, effect and duration as the Convention of today's date, of which it is to be considered no an integral part. 8. Kultilateral: Declaration of the Seventh International Conference of American States, 1933• This Conference had befiore it a report of a Fifth Sub-Committee on Industrial and Agricultural Uses of International Rivers which associated 'the right of every riparian state to the use of international waters for industrial, agricultural or economic ends in general with the obligation of indemnifying, repairing ori-compensating the damages occasioned by the exploitation of other riparian or ^opisdictional states of the same waters. ilL The Uruguayan delegate who wrote this report stated during the discussions that the principles of the Declaration were believed to be in current legal practice and have been observed by Brazil, whose river network covers the greater part of South America, as well as by First, Second and Eighth Committee, Hinutes and Antecedents, p. 178 (1933) |
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] : |