AZ vs. CA:22 California Exhibits, Vol. XXII; Nos. 5001-5002; 5101-5123; 5200A-5205A; 5521-5588A; 5601-56215521-5588A; 5601-5621

page 141

-Ul- VI, Should the work be confined to isolating the rules existing at present, or should rules de jure condendo be formulated? VTI. What principles and rules bearing on the subject can be isolated in positive international law? VIII, In particular, what is thought of the following rules: 1, Every State has the right to make the greatest possible use of the waters which flow through or along its territory, provided that it respects the corresponding right of the States having an interest in the same waterway or river system, and subject to any limitation imposed by international law in general or by the limitations embodies in the following provisions in this draft, 2, No change may be made to an international waterway that results in appreciable damage to the territory of another State. 3, The foregoing notwithstanding, a riparian State may not raise an objection against the fact that another riparian State concerned derives advantages from the use of a common waterway on a basis of equality of rights. Equality of rights should be construed to mean that riparian States have an equal right to use the waters of such waterway in accordance with their needs, 4, Likewise, such objection may not have the effect of preventing a State concerned from benefitting to the greatest possible extent from the use of existing waters, but the beneficiary State must ensure that the objecting State shall be able to derive the proportionate advantages to which it is entitled. IX. Should it be mandatory for a State which intends to develop a waterway in which other States have an interest to request the consent of those States, and, if so, to what extent? X. To what extent is the rule of the respect for acquired rights (priority of use) applicable?