Greece accedes to the 1997 UN Convention on transboundary waters

(BY HUGO)

Greece acceded to the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses on 2 December 2010 (see UN Treaty Collection Database). Greece has become the 21st country party to the Convention. According to article 36 of the Convention, it shall enter into force when 35 countries are party to it.

The WWF reports on the motivations behind Greece's decision. According to Tina Birbili, Greek Minister of Environment, Energy and Climate Change:

«The promotion of transboundary cooperation on water issues is inherent to Greece’s foreign policy, since around 25% of its surface water extends to or originates from neighbouring countries. The UN Watercourses Convention together with the EU Water Framework Directive constitute the necessary background and reference point for advancing the transboundary negotiations that Greece has initiated with Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on the Prespa Lake; with Turkey, on the Evros basin; and with Bulgaria, on the Nestos, Strymon, Ardas, and Evros basins.»

In light of the above, 2 interesting points are: 1) the blurring of boundaries between international and national law through supranational law with the EU Water Framework Directive; 2) Greece's adherence to the principles of equitable and reasonable use as well as no harm for the management of transboundary waters with Turkey.

Turkey is principally an upstream state sharing waters with parched downstream neighbours in the Fertile Crescent. Turkey's position on transboundary waters is a traditional stance leaning towards the Harmon doctrine. Now, it seems that the principles of the 1997 Convention might be furthered against one of its prominent adversary due to the combination of Turkey's desire to join EU with water management reform in Greece under the WFD. Of note is the fact that Turkey is the state that required a vote on the 1997 UN Convention and voiced strong criticisms in UN plenary meeting at that time (Mr. Çelem, 21 May 1997):

«The draft Convention under consideration today is solely a framework Convention, as reaffirmed by General Assembly resolution A/51/206 and by draft resolution A/51/L.7, which is before us today. The mandate of the Sixth Committee to elaborate a framework convention was established very clearly by General Assembly resolution A/51/206. Accordingly, the draft Convention should have set forth only general principles and its application should have depended upon the drawing up of specific agreements which take into account the particular characteristics of the watercourses. In our view, neither the title nor the content of the draft Convention correspond to this provision of both resolutions.

In this respect, the draft Convention goes far beyond the scope of a framework convention and, in contradiction to its intent and nature, establishes a mechanism for planned measures. This has no basis in general and customary international law. Furthermore, this mechanism creates an obvious inequality between States by stipulating that, in order to implement its planned measures, a State belonging to a certain category is obliged to obtain the prior consent — tantamount to a veto right — of another State belonging to a certain other category.

It should also be stressed that it is not appropriate for a framework convention to foresee any compulsory rules regarding the settlement of disputes and not to leave this issue to the discretion of the concerned States. Furthermore, the draft Convention does not make any reference to the indisputable principle of the sovereignty of the watercourse States over the parts of international watercourses situated in their territory. The draft Convention should clearly have established the primacy of the fundamental principles of equitable and reasonable utilization over the obligation not to cause significant harm. The present text is liable to create confusion as far as implementation of the whole Convention is concerned.

In conclusion, my delegation would like to state that the Republic of Turkey does not intend to sign the Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses and that this Convention does not and shall not have any legal effect for Turkey in terms of general and customary international law. For the reasons I have just explained, my delegation will vote against draft resolution A/51/L.72.»