Source: http://www.globalwaterforum.org/2013/07/02/the-blue-nile-dam-controversy-in-the-eyes-of-international-law-part-3/
Timestamp: 2018-01-21 22:24:23
Document Index: 458807247

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'Art 51', 'Art 53', 'Art 7', 'art 3']

The Blue Nile dam controversy in the eyes of international law: Part 3 – Global Water Forum
The Blue Nile dam controversy in the eyes of international law: Part 3
This article is Part 3 in a series of 3 articles by the same author. Part 1 is available here and Part 2 is available here.
Boat on the Nile, Egypt. Source: Allan Harris.
The Use of Military Force or Intervention to Protect Water Interests
The current tension poses at least three crucial questions. Firstly, the legality of Egypt’s consideration of using, or threatening to use, military force and sabotage, as well as funding armed opposition groups. Without going into the polemics of the military capabilities of these contesting nations, either to destroy a dam or defend such a potential attack, the resort to use military force or interfere in to the affairs of the other is illegal under international [and African Union] law. This is so even if the dam violates some aspects of the law of international rivers. States can only use force in today’s international law in self-defence, if they are attacked militarily, or if authorised by the UN Security Council.1
It may be submitted that as the survival of Egypt depends on the Nile, anything which affects such a vital ‘national security’ interest thus amounts to an attack against Egypt and therefore justifies the use of military force by Egypt. Ethiopia stresses, however, that the tripartite Commission’s report ‘vindicated’ it that the dam will not have a significant harm to downstream countries, a claim which has not yet been expressly contested by Egypt. Certainly, whether or not the Blue Nile dam will significantly impact Egypt, the resort to military force, or a threat of force, cannot be justified under modern international law as a means of securing water interests or any other national policy.2
If Egypt opts for the use of force and intervention option, however, it will trigger a dangerous regional or even an international conflict. Ethiopia will also legally and morally be entitled to defend itself from any act of aggression committed by Egypt as it did against fascist Italy in the past. In the worst scenario, it is worthy of note that attacking a dam or a water installation during an armed conflict is, in principle, a violation of the law of armed conflict.3
Do the Egyptian Statements Amount to a Threat against Ethiopia?
The second issue regards whether the ‘threats’ made against Ethiopia violates Egypt’s duties under the United Nations Charter and thus made it internationally responsible for its deeds. The term ‘threat’ under the UN Charter is not clearly defined and thus subject to controversy. The first response to this may well be that Egypt deliberately tried to threaten Ethiopia, including to use a military force or sabotage the dam through internal actors in breach of its regional and UN obligations. This can be evidenced by the president’s remarks of the availability of ‘all options’. This may well entail Egypt’s state responsibility for committing a serious breach under international law which may result in its own legal consequences for Egypt.4
The opposing, and probably the most reasonable view may be that what happened in Cairo on June 2nd was a sheer propaganda or a national dialogue and would not amount to a concerted Egyptian State policy, and therefore is not a violation of any international rules. Either of these tentative arguments may be valid subject to obtaining further factual evidence and depending on how the situation develops – escalation of the tension or peaceful dialogue and settlement.
Is Ethiopia Legally Bound to halt the Project?
The last issue to consider would be whether or not Ethiopia is obliged under international law to halt the construction of the dam. As things stand now, 55 and 18 billion cubic meters of the Nile River’s water is used by Egypt and Sudan respectively. Ethiopia argues, and to some extent is vindicated by the experts’ report, that its dam will not reduce the flow of the Nile water to both Sudan and Egypt. Egypt, on the other hand, contends that important studies are lacking. Even if the dam will significantly affect Egypt’s interests Ethiopia’s duty will be to:
take all appropriate measures , in consultation with the affected State, to eliminate or mitigate such harm and, where appropriate, to discuss the question of compensation.5,6
Given that any actual or potential significant harm is not proven by Egypt, and more importantly by an impartial third party,7 Egypt’s possible request to Ethiopia to halt its construction project appears to be a question of policy and not law for Ethiopia. For that matter, neither customary international law nor general principle of law obliges a State to get permission for damming an international river from downstream countries, unless stipulated in an agreed treaty between concerned parties. The commencement or continuation of Ethiopia’s dam project does not hence legally rely on Egypt’s will. Moreover, the 1902 colonial Treaty only empowers Sudan to get consulted by Ethiopia. Sudan however is positive about the shared benefits of the Blue Nile dam, which is why Egyptian politicians are unhappy with its stance on the construction of the dam, as shown in their televised meeting of the 2nd of June – this led Sudan to call upon Egypt to stop provocation of ‘water war’.
It is in the best interests of both Egypt and Ethiopia to work closely together to resolve the current tension. While national (and international) transparency and accountability in managing this issue are imperative in both nations (as stipulated under Article 18 of the Berlin Rules), using and utilising the Nile as a propaganda tool for purposes of domestic political consumption is perilous.
The rhetoric to use military force or repel such a force could lead to an arms race, diverting huge resources to militaries of both or other interested states. This would not only destabilise the region but also would be detrimental to the crucial development agenda of both sides. Ethiopia must offer everything in its power to comfort Egypt, as they did with Sudan, including the establishment of a joint Commission with the power to oversee immediate and long-term effects of its dam.
Similarly, Egypt ought to recognise that Ethiopia and other upstream countries are entitled to their equitable share of the Nile, as sole contributors of its waters. The ‘no drop of water’ to be lost argument is not legality and morally defensible. A wise diplomatic engagement and leadership is expected of both nations to move forward. If diplomacy and conciliation do not work for various reasons both nations must resort to a judicial or arbitral (African) settlement.
The Blue Nile dam controversy in the eyes of international law: Part 2, 24 June 2013
1. Art 51 UN Charter; see also Nicaragua v. USA, ICJ Repts 1986 available online at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=367&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&p3=5.
2. See the Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928, summarised at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/314413/Kellogg-Briand-Pact.
3. Art 53 Berlin Rules.
4. Articles 1 & 48 International Law Commission Draft Articles 2001, available online at http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf.
5. For the ban on targeting non-military objects see Zeray Yihdego, ‘The Gaza UN Mission: Implications for International Humanitarian Law and UN Fact-Finding ‘, 13 Melbourne Journal of International Law (2012): 1, pp 185-88 also available online at http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/mjil/issues/issue-archive/volume-13-1.
5. Art 7(2) of the UN Convention.
6. For general guidelines on this see e.g. M.A. Salman, “Dams, International Rivers, and Riparian States: An Analysis of the Recommendations of the World Commission on Dams.” American University International Law Review 16, no. 6 (2001): 1477-1505.
Thank you ‘EIPSA’ for the above well stated part 3 article. It’s is important Egypt and Ethiopia has to work together and co-operate for the benefit of their people rather than waging war,conflict and threat etc.. Conflict, can not be a wise solution and is not expected from a matured Government.
I wish peace,love,harmony and blessing from God be upon both countries.
Previous Entry Governance of transboundary aquifers: New challenges and new opportunities
Next Entry Tourism and water: Interrelationships and management