| OCR Text |
Show -132- Rule 4# Should there arise a difference of opinion between the llarlras and ify-sore Governments in any case in which the consent of the former is applied for under the last preceding Rule, the same shall be referred to the final decision either of arbitrators appointed by both Governments or of the Government of India, Rule 5. (After reciting that the consent to certain new irrigation works had been given, this rule went on to provide) "Should, owing to the omission of Mysore Government to make or maintain these workn in a reasonably adequate standard of safety, irrigation works in Madras be damaged, the Mysore Government shall pay to the Madras Government reasonable compensation for such damage," Rule 6. The foregoing rules shall apply as far as may be to the Madras Government as regards streams flowing through Eritish territory into Mysore, Appended to these rules was a detailed procedure, based on engineering technicalities, for securing an equitable apportionment of the waters concerned. A further dispute having arisen, the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators* award was given in 19-1^, in accordance with the agreed rules quoted above, "The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it. shall apply...(d)...the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as*" subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law" 1, Individual publicists It is remarkable that only a few of the publicists who have considered this subject maintain the view that riparians have unlimited sovereign rights to use at will the waters in their territory, and that the great majority of them come to the conclusion that the essence of international law upon the matter is the principle of mutual rights and obligations between co-riparians in their uses of systems of international waters, and, in the event of competing uses, equitable apportionment of the waters or of their benefits. |
| 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] : |
