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

page 148

-US- determining the just and reasonable apportionment of the total possible uses and benefits of the system. The balancing of rights with the obtention of maximum benefits to all riparians in most situations can probably only be done by joint planning and/or construction with agreed distribution of benefits, e.g. irrigation and power. 3(a) A riparian which proposes to make, or allow, a change in the existing regime of a system of international waters which could interfere with the realization by a co-riparian of its right to share on a just and reasonable basis in the use and benefits of the system, is under a duty to give the co-riparian an opportunity to object. (b) If the co-riparian, in good faith, objects and demonstrates its willingness to reach a prompt and just solution by the pacific means envisaged in Article 33 (1) of the Charter of the United Nations, a riparian is under a duty to refrain from making, or allowing, such change, pending agreement or other solution. Comment: It seems clear that there is no rule of international law that a riparian must have the consent of co-riparians as a condition precedent to the use and development within its territory of a system of international waters. In other words, a co-riparian does not have what in effect would amount to a veto over changes in the system. However, in current international practice no riparian goes ahead with e xploitation of its part of a system when a co-riparian may possibly be adversely affected, without consulting the latter and coining to an understanding with it. It is to be noted that the latter's consent need not be expressly given; having been given an opportunity to object, its silence may be taken as consent. If a co-riparian frivously objects that injury may possible be caused in its territory, the riparian has the power to proceed. The crux of this aspect of the matter is that friendly states flesirous of conducting their mutual relations in good faith under the rule of law do in fact 'seek solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice8' as envisaged in Article 33 (1) of the United Nations Charter. Riparians are also doubtlessly motivated to seek agreement because of recognition that under the international law of responsibility of states, a riparian which alters the character of the bed or flow of a system of international waters is responsible if injury is thereby caused to a co-riparian. The concept of injury in international law is very complex; and it is difficult to set an absolute limit beyond which the injury is sufficient to provide legitimate grounds for