The two Conventions under consideration have raised the ques-tion of their mutual compatibility ever since the adoption of the later one, given their basically identical material scope. From a systemic standpoint, the reason for elaborating the New York Convention (NYC) further to the Helsinki Convention (HC) could be found in the originally regional pan-European and most stringent normative standards of the latter Convention, while the former was meant to codify at the global level the minimum core standards of interna-tional water law. Given those features, combined with the prospect at the time of adoption of the NYC that it would enter into force any time soon, if at all, would suggest that a comparative analysis of the two instruments would be useful from a merely customary interna-tional law perspective. In that respect, comparison between the two instruments would aim at assessing their mutual compatibility with a view to verifying the possibility of an harmonized process of con-solidation of the general rules of the game. The above approach would be buttressed at that time by a dictum of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case, relying on the authority of the NYC – only four months after its adoption, hence, long before the prospect of its entry into force – as eviden-tiary of the customary equitable and reasonable utilisation principle, irrespective of the entry into force of that Convention. While, the importance of analysis from a customary law angle international law remains intact, particularly for States that will not become par-ties to these Conventions, the recent entry into force of the NYC – together with the entry into force of the 2003 amendments to the HC allowing for global participation – renders all the more im-portant that comparison be considered also from a treaty law point of view. This approach would be of practical assistance to states that would intend to ratify both Conventions in point, or even only one of them.
Comparing the 1992 UNECE Helsinki Water Convention with the 1997 UN New York Convention on international water-course: harmonization over conflict
TANZI, ATTILA MASSIMILIANO
2014
Abstract
The two Conventions under consideration have raised the ques-tion of their mutual compatibility ever since the adoption of the later one, given their basically identical material scope. From a systemic standpoint, the reason for elaborating the New York Convention (NYC) further to the Helsinki Convention (HC) could be found in the originally regional pan-European and most stringent normative standards of the latter Convention, while the former was meant to codify at the global level the minimum core standards of interna-tional water law. Given those features, combined with the prospect at the time of adoption of the NYC that it would enter into force any time soon, if at all, would suggest that a comparative analysis of the two instruments would be useful from a merely customary interna-tional law perspective. In that respect, comparison between the two instruments would aim at assessing their mutual compatibility with a view to verifying the possibility of an harmonized process of con-solidation of the general rules of the game. The above approach would be buttressed at that time by a dictum of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case, relying on the authority of the NYC – only four months after its adoption, hence, long before the prospect of its entry into force – as eviden-tiary of the customary equitable and reasonable utilisation principle, irrespective of the entry into force of that Convention. While, the importance of analysis from a customary law angle international law remains intact, particularly for States that will not become par-ties to these Conventions, the recent entry into force of the NYC – together with the entry into force of the 2003 amendments to the HC allowing for global participation – renders all the more im-portant that comparison be considered also from a treaty law point of view. This approach would be of practical assistance to states that would intend to ratify both Conventions in point, or even only one of them.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
