Since treaties represent negotiated compromises – often reconciling strong differences between a large number of states – imaginative and subtle drafting is vital in order to bridge the gap between the opposing views. This is equally true for the UN Watercourses Convention, which serves as a global framework for law related to the non-navigational uses of international watercourses. Hence, it is inevitable that some terms are unclear or ambiguous. In applying these sometimes vague provisions, the following question may arise: which text of the Convention has priority in interpreting it? An authentic, or ‘authoritative,’ version of the text of the Convention has to be distinguished from an ‘official’ one. The former is the text being used for the authentication, i.e. the verification, of the Convention. The latter may have been used by a party for signing, but never reached the status of being ‘authentic,’ since it may merely be an official translation by a particular state.547
|
Global Water Facts
.
.
Connect with us
Supported by
