ABSTRACT
The principle raison d’etre of this research is the clarification of the ways in which conflicting interests and differing uses along rivers shared by (only) two states are reconciled in practice. As noted, existing international legal principles, both vague and contradictory, do not pave a clear path along which disputing states can travel. On the one hand, the right is attributed to states to use their portion of the river in furtherance of their own national development policies. This is the principle of absolute territorial sovereignty. On the other hand, states are enjoined not to cause harm to neighboring states by such uses, which is the principle of absolute territorial integrity. Even the putative “compromise principle” – equitable and reasonable utilization – affords scant assistance, since it implies only that while states may freely utilize their water resources, they are obliged to reconcile such utilization with the vital interests of other states. The statutory obligation not to cause significant harm tends to further vitiate the utility of the equitable and reasonable utilization principle.
