OCR Text |
Show -140- without the consent of the other; 2. All alterations injurious to the water, the emptying therein of injurious matter (from factories, etc.) is forbidden; 3. No establishment (especially factories utilizing hydraulic power) may take so much water that the constitution, otherwise called the utilisable or essential character of the stream shall, when it reaches the territory downstream, be seriously modified; k. The right of navigation by virtue of a title recognized in international law nay not be violated in any way whatever; 5. A State situated downstream may not erect or allow to be erected within its territory constructions or establishments which would subject the other State to the danger of inundation; 6. The foregoing rules are applicable likewise to cases where streams flow from a lake situated in one State, through the territory of another State, or the territories of other States; 7. It is recommended that the interested States appoint permanent joint coiwrissions, which shall render decisions, or at least shall give their opinion, when, from the building of new establishments or the making of alterations in existing establishments, serious consequences might result in that part of the stream situated in the territory of the other State. The Institut has recently appointed a new committee charged with the function of presenting a draft text defining the rules of international law on this subject. The rapporteur of the committee, Mr. Juraj Andrassy of Yugoslavia, has produced a preliminary report2 for submission to the committee, in which he upholds, as a matter of existing international law, the principle of mutual rights and duties between co-riparians of a system of international waters. This report contains a list of questions of which the following are of special interest: V. Are there any rules governing the use of international waters to be found in existing international law? 1. ECE Report, p. 261; 2k Annuaire l?0 2. See above n. ^ p# 133. |
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] : |