Article 4

4.2 Application: Rights of third parties to consultation and participation

This scenario is adapted from the 1994 ILC Draft Articles on the Law of International Watercourses and Commentaries thereto, paragraph 96.
States A and B, whose common border is the River X, agree that each may divert 50 per cent of the river flow for domestic consumption, manufacturing and irrigation purposes at a point 25 miles upstream from state C, through which River X flows upon leaving states A and B. The total amount of water available to state C from the river, including return flow in states A and B, will be reduced as a result of the diversion, by 25 percent from what would have been available without diversion. Downstream state C relies extensively on aquaculture (especially salmon farming) on the section of the River X which flows through its territory and is concerned that the reduced flow will have an impact upon salmon migration upstream to breeding grounds.

Does state C have the right to join in consultations and negotiations, as a prospective party to any agreement, with regard to the proposed action by states A and B?

The answer is yes, state C has the right to join consultation and negotiation, but the right is qualified to the extent that it must appear that the proposed water use by State A and B will have a significant effect on state C. What constitutes ‘a significant effect’ is something greater than an ‘adverse effect’. State C must be likely to suffer from a real impairment of use, with a detrimental impact of the proposed diversion by states A and B, upon the environment or the socioeconomic development of the harmed state (e.g. public health, industry, property, and agriculture). If state C can prove objectively that the diversion will create a real impairment of use to its salmon industry, then it will be entitled to participate in consultations and negotiations relating to the agreement, and potentially to become a party thereto. If state C is not significantly affected by the proposed agreement between states A and B, regarding diversion of part of the River X, the physical unity of the river does not of itself require that state C have these rights. In these circumstances states A and B are legally entitled to enter into such an agreement without state C.

Download Fact Sheets

Relationship with UNECE Water Convention

Relationship with SADC Revised Protocol


Global Water Facts

global water facts
global water facts

Connect with us

Connect on facebook Subscribe to rss

Supported by

WWF UN Water Law Green Cross IUCN University of Northumbria