Study of the main elements in agreements between countries for the management of water resources | Статья в журнале «Молодой ученый»

Отправьте статью сегодня! Журнал выйдет 13 марта, печатный экземпляр отправим 17 марта.

Опубликовать статью в журнале


Рубрика: Политология

Опубликовано в Молодой учёный №50 (340) декабрь 2020 г.

Дата публикации: 12.12.2020

Статья просмотрена: 2 раза

Библиографическое описание:

Джумадурдыев, Д. Д. Study of the main elements in agreements between countries for the management of water resources / Д. Д. Джумадурдыев. — Текст : непосредственный // Молодой ученый. — 2020. — № 50 (340). — С. 547-552. — URL: (дата обращения: 03.03.2021).


Fresh water makes up only 2.5 % of the total amount of water on Earth, and only about 30 % of it is available to people. The growing demand for this resource, due to population growth, industrial development and growing scarcity, could well lead to a global water crisis. Since more than 40 % of the world's population depends on water supply divided into at least two countries, more than 250 watercourses cross one or more national borders. In its global agenda for ecology and growth, the international community is now identifying water as one of its top priorities. Despite this, effective water management across borders is easily overlooked. Cooperation between the bordering countries in the field of sharing freshwater resources is important to ensure the efficient use of these resources, as well as the prevention and resolution of conflicts. However, this cooperation can be difficult because it is difficult to control most of the common freshwater resources between countries without a clear transboundary agreement on water management. This is because each country is interested in its own benefit and states shy away from cooperation even in favorable conditions when they can afford it. The problem of river basins in the world continues to be the search for common solutions that guarantee the sharing of land. Through an agreement between countries in the water sector, water scarcity, environmental degradation, pollution and river management can be addressed.

The aim of the work

To study the experience of international practice in the field of transboundary river management.

The research methodology is as follows:

− Review of literature on international water practices;

− Collecting data about the main 5 elements from water practices

− Comparative analysis of the collected data

Chapter I: Best water practices in the world for transboundary river management

This chapter will examine achievements in water management between countries based on agreements. The aim of the Agreement should be to solve water management problems, as well as improve regional cooperation between riparian countries. A key part of the agreement is the consideration of the decision between countries to provide water for drinking, agricultural and industrial production appropriate environmental standards. These goals will help protect the environment. This allows states to manage their own water supply systems in accordance with 9 their own environmental and development policies and to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction do not affect the environment of other non-state states or territories.

UNECE is a pan-European environmental organization, and the protection of transboundary waters is one of the most pressing issues for this wider group. The 1980 Declaration, which was partly based on the guidelines of the 1966 ECE Declaration on Pollution Control Policies, was one of the Commission's first attempts to articulate generally accepted transboundary water policy priorities and strategies. The strategy was to prevent pollution, as well as to control Transboundary Rivers. The international water law, adopted at the beginning of the 20th century, which regulates the use of freshwater resources without navigation, includes a regional agreement that includes the management of water resources in cooperation with states, which includes the scope, basic rules, 2 procedural rules, institutional mechanisms and dispute resolution. The above methods have been developed for interrelated assessments of each river basin between countries. General Assembly LAD 1 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) is making a timely contribution to the sustainable management of transboundary rivers. The UN water activities in the 1980s focused on the issue of transboundary water management, ways to improve 1 regional cooperation in general and between riparian countries, in particular countries bordering transboundary waters. In addition, the activities LAD 1 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe are also concentrated in this area. The Economic Commission for Europe Declaration on the Pollution Prevention and Regulation Policies for Water Supply, Transboundary Pollution and the Water Economic Cooperation Principles of the Economic Commission for Europe have reached their culmination. The result of this work was the preparation of political documents. Based on these documents, UNECE members agreed on a legal agreement called the Convention, signed in Helsinki on March 17, 1992 in accordance with the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. The publication of this legal document was timely, as the 1 Soviet Union and some other states of Central and Southeast Europe broke up and posed new challenges to regional cooperation in general and environmental and security cooperation in particular. The water Convention is a typical «framework» instrument and is an international agreement. This UNECE Convention aims to create an institutional framework to strengthen cooperation where countries can benefit from collective technical and legal support as well as develop the provisions of the framework agreement.

The key goal of this international agreement is the achievement of the Convention's (The Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes). Goals by means of a two-tier approach to two different categories of obligations. [1] The first collection of obligations in Section 1 shall be more general and shall extend to all Parties to the Convention. Part of the second class of obligations is more detailed and is enforced by further agreements between riparian Parties with similar cross-border waters. The legal structure of the Convention is more comprehensive than traditional agreements, and provides even more comprehensive legal guidelines. Europe redefined new borders, after which the water Convention became an international legal instrument for these countries, which was traditionally domestic, with regard to the safety and control of transboundary waters. The Convention has been in force since 6 October 1996. Additional protocols, 20 the Protocol on water and safety, adopted and entered into force in 1999, and in 2005 the Protocol on civil liability and damage from the transboundary effects of industrial incidents on transboundary waters confirmed the objectives of the Convention as a Framework agreement. The Convention has played a key role in strengthening and improving cooperation in the region as a model for a number of bilateral and multilateral agreements. These include the 1994 Danube Convention and the 1999 Rhine Convention for the protection of the Rhine. The Maas and Scheldt Agreements are an example of this Convention, and the transboundary waters of Estonia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine are also examples.

The Key five elements of the UN Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes

1) scope of application of convention; manual to find more precise definition and clarification on the scope. Which literature are you using here in this chapter? I do not see references

2) substantive rules (obligations);

3) procedural rules (obligations);.

4) institutional mechanisms;

5) dispute settlement;

Scope of application of convention.

Scope of application " is an key part of any treaty and is largely defined in the original portions. The scope usually describes:

− spatial (terrestrial and/or hydrological strictures) borders implementation of an agreement that frequently explains the forms and water resource limits controlled by the agreement;

− provides a clear explanation of the shape of the agreement

− the exploitation or performance controlled of treaty [3].

The issue of the right to join is eventually resolved whether a State has the right to take part in such an arrangement. Various factors must therefore be taken into account and explained to assess the Convention's scope: Geographical scope of the Convention, cases and events covered by the Convention, including the issue of the State has a right to become a Party to the Convention, as well as the number of persons covered by or participating in the Convention. Such problems are closely interrelated and the resulting rights and responsibilities influence the rights and duties of each other. The Convention's geographical reach applies to the river and marine geographic climate. Regarding water supplies, the definition of Transboundary Waters», «surface waters» and «soil water» is included. Transboundary waters mean any surface or subterranean waters that mark, cross borders or are located at such borders between two or more States. Surface water encompasses a canal, channel, lake, pond or wetland that absorbs water on the ground surface. Everything water below the surface is filled by groundwater for example, the scope of the Elbe river Convention (Convention on the international 1 Commission for the Protection of the Elbe Oct.08,1990) is shown in the articles conservation from pollution of this river.: Article 1(1), for instance, excludes coastal waters from the Convention's scope. Article 2(6) does however oblige parties to protect the ecosystem, including the marine environment, affected by their cross-border waters. This responsibility had a significant effect on individual agreements drawn up under the Convention including provisions established pursuant to the Convention which included provisions on the security of the receiving maritime and coastal areas. This refers to the Elbe, Oder and Danube River Security Agreements. It is important to note that transboundary waters which end in temporary waters or dry the rivers of a wasteful lake are not excluded from the Convention [1].

1.2 Substantive Rules (Principles).

The UNECE Convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes (Helsinki, 1992) has principles for rights and obligations under the law (fair and equitable implementation, due diligence, protection). The Convention contains the principles of rights and obligations under the law (fair and equitable exercise, due diligence, protection). The principle of fair and reasonable use of water resources includes 3 main concepts:

1) the principle of no significant harm — equal rights of States to use an international watercourse do not automatically mean that there is an equal share of a particular watercourse among all coastal States.

2) the principle of cooperation reflects General rules of law for determining the scope of rights-fair use of water resources is not equated with the most efficient use or application of the most effective known methods.

3) all States of a country shall take reasonable measures to mitigate environmental damage both within and outside the state (for example, to transboundary water resources) or to persons located on it, unless the 25 case has serious consequences and the damage is identified by clear and convincing evidence.

This can be General or precise. 4 Article 2, paragraphs 2 (C) and 5 (C), of the Convention enshrines the principle of fair use. In particular, article 2- 11 the parties shall take all necessary measures. UNECE Convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes (Helsinki, 1992).

Paragraph (C) — to ensure that, in carrying out activities which have or can have a transboundary effect, transboundary waters are given, in a rational and fair manner, especially with regard to their transboundary nature. Article 5(c)-Water supplies 17 are controlled to meet the needs of the present generation without jeopardizing their ability to fulfill their own needs for future generations.

As demonstrated by international agreements, non-binding treaties, court rulings, and literature the concept of equal and reasonable use is generally recognized as an integral part of customary international law. In the International Tribunal's decision in the case concerning the project Gabcikovo- Nagymaros (Hungary / Slovakia) on the Danube, which referring to the «fundamental right of the watercourse state for a fair and equitable distribution of international watercourse resources», the most authoritative acknowledgment of its normal character can be found in the Universal recourse [1].

At the time of the agreement of the countries, the article on the equal use of water resources should be published in the Convention and monitored between countries. Owing to a change in circumstances relating to the variables that are to be determined it is not possible to alter the infringement at a later date. For example, Kansas V. Colorado: the long-term determination of fair use is best demonstrated in the application of the Fair Use principle by the decision in the case of Kansas V. Colorado, given in 1907 by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Tribunal dismissed Colorado's demand for legal indemnity for substantial damage caused by the pollution of the river waters by Kansas on the river downstream of the Arkansas River and was found to be equal to use in that regard. The Court ruled that the water supply in the state of Kansas was reduced by the drainage divert of the Arkansas River by Colorado. This withdrawal resulted, at the same time, in turning vast areas of Colorado into fertile land that transformed thousands of hectares. While the impact on certain areas of the Arkansas Valley in Kansas of decreased rushing was extreme, the Court acknowledged that it did not mean a great deal of degradation for much of the valley, or any. 1 The Court adds however that " it is clear that, if the depletion of the Colorado River continues to rise, the time is right for Kansas to properly assert that the benefits are not split up equally and to legitimately pursue legal protection from Colorado's acts» (206 USA, 1907, p. 117)

1.3 Procedural Rules.

Procedural and mechanism requirements are an important element in popular watercourses agreements. They provide the means to implement the basic provisions and manage the changing water supply system, as well as the means by which the basic rules are implemented. [3]

This procedure includes important rules for the control and management of transboundary rivers between countries. they consist of the following elements: joint assessment, joint monitoring programs, information exchange between coastal strips, warning and alarm systems, mutual assistance, priority information [1].

The UNECE Convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes specifies that riparian Parties establish and enforce joint surveillance plans, perform an evaluation 23 of the condition of transboundary waters, jointly or in collaboration. Also the Convention on the security and use of international lakes and transboundary watercourses includes the rules of procedure provided for in Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14. The aim of this article is for countries also to cooperate in the communication and exchange of information. The parties establish and enforce joint programs, including floods and ice blocks, and cross-border effects, for monitoring the condition of transoundary water. Agree on the emission parameters and the list of pollutants that are routinely tracked and regulated for releases and concentrations in transboundary water. We also arrange joint meetings to co-ordinate an assessment and an overview of the steps to avoid, monitor and reduce transboundary impacts on the condition of transboundary water. In compliance with the terms of Article 16 of the Convention, the findings of these assessments shall be made publicly available. The parties agree on the principles and implementations of monitoring, metrology, analysis, processing and assessment processes, and methods for documenting pollutant releases. Riparian Parties may create a special joint expert body to develop, enforce and sustain a joint monitoring and assessment system, or under established cross-border cooperation schemes, in order to establish an effective joint monitoring and assessment system. Countries should decide on main elements for mutual monitoring and assessment programs:

a) the task of obtaining the appropriate policy-making information;

b) the selection of the monitoring sites; Stations from the international boundary upstream or downstream.

(c) Choice of definable surface water, soil water, suspended materials and, where applicable, sediment parameters. (Physical, mechanical, biological and hydromorphological consistency and quantitative components;).);

(d) sampling Frequency;

e) methods of sampling and analysis, quality control 1 of laboratories (quality assurance/quality control or QA/QC) %;

(f) data Management (data quality and format, collection methods, frequency and storage, maintenance and exchange techniques);

(g) data evaluation Method;

(h) Presentation and publication of results;

(i) Analytical quality control and mutual calibration.

Data collection, review and assessment at national level will take place on the basis of globally agreed procedures. Joint monitoring and evaluation systems are reviewed annually. For example, the Danube River Transnational Monitoring Network can be cited as follows: the Conttracting Parties to the Danube River Convention, and the Member States of ICPDR have agreed to create a transnational monitoring network. In order to achieve this, an expert group was formed within the ICPDR for the monitoring, lab analysis and knowledge management. The results of this Monitoring System provide a full image of and help, among other purposes, to establish action plans, as well as the implementation of the environmental targets set out in compliance with the Water Policy Directive of the European Union. The surveillance programme. A bilateral agreement may introduce joint monitoring and assessment systems for the entire river basin or for particular transboundary waters.

The long-term existence of the agreement also depends on the information exchange between riparian Parties which this Convention contains (Article 13) and which includes:

(3 a) environmental status of transboundary waters;

(b) experience gained in the application and use of best available technology and research and development results;

(с) emissions and monitoring results;

(d) measures taken and planned to prevent, control and reduce transboundary impacts;

(e) permits or regulations for the discharge of waste water issued or established by the competent authorities or the relevant authority.

2. The riparian Parties share information on their national legislation 4 in order to harmonize emission limits.

3. Where a riparian Party is asked to provide the data or information not accessible by a riparian Party, the first riparian party may take action in order to fulfill the request, but the requesting Party will have to pay fair collection costs and if necessary, handle them.

4. Riparian Parties shall promote the exchange of commercial transfers of available technologies, mutual communications and industrial collaboration and joint projects, knowledge exchange and expertise, and the provision of technical assistance for the purposes of implementing this Convention. Via planning seminars and meetings, the riparian parties also conduct joint training programs and the coordination of the correct best available technology [1].

1.4 Institutional Mechanisms

Institutional Mechanisms: Joint bodies and commissions form an essential component of many modern watercourse agreements. In addition to their main function of coordinating Transboundary watercourse State States’ efforts in developing and managing the watercourse, institutional mechanisms usually carry out dispute avoidance functions by allowing technical experts to study potentially controversial issues and make recommendations before an issue spirals into a controversy that requires formal diplomatic negotiations or third-party dispute resolution [3].

Institutions are the managing and controlling center in the field of water and environment. Governmental environmental law and organizations are the focal point of the United Nations, which has specialized departments and branches, departments and services. The key findings relevant to the institutional structure for supporting sustainable development were recommendations for improving institutional frameworks and facilitating the integration of environmental, social and economic aspects. in the work of the UN regional commissions, improve inter-Agency cooperation and the position of the Commission on sustainable development. [3]

That monitor the state of sustainable management. The balance of conflicting interest in water resource matters and the sustainable cooperation on water will play a critical role in adequate institutional frameworks at national and regional level on a cross-border basis. Cooperation institutionalization will lead to the building of trust and many joint management organizations have innovative approaches to mutual water problems. Research shows that an institutional dialog and conflict resolution capacity is open. Joint bodies, such as river commissions, lakes and aquifers, are important on a trans frontier level. Country cooperation and the promotion in a cross-border sense of sustainable use of water resources. Food and drug products are available in all regions. Food and drug products are not available. The OMVS was founded in 1972 by its member countries Mali, Mauritania, and Senegal (Guinea has an observer status). THIS is the Senegal Association for the Basin of the River. The Convention on the Senegal River is to be implemented; feasibility studies are to be supported and coordinated; and all technical and economical functions imposed by Member States are to be fulfilled. In 2002, its leaders adopted a Water Charter with a shared vision for sustainable management of the river (GEF 2011). The NBI in February 1999: Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, 21 Democratic Republic of Congo, and Eritrea (the latter being an observer). The NBI was appointed as a river minister in Egypt. The NBI aims to cooperatively grow the river, share socio-economic benefits, and foster peace and security at the regional level.

It offers an overarching structure, a common vision and a collection of policies for a basin-wide co-operative action system (GEF 2011). The MRC was set up by the Mekong Agreement in 1995 and follows the Mekong Committee which was established in 1957 by the UN, the Mekong River Commission (MRC). The MRC is an inter-governmental organization established by Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos to coordinate the production of water resources in the Lower Mekong Basin (LMRB) in relation to natural and environmental resources. Dialog partners are the two upper states of the Mekong Basin, China and Myanmar. The MRC is composed of the Assembly, Joint Committee and Secretariat, three Permanent Bodies. It includes a variety of parties involved in its programme, its strategic planning and its research (UN Water 2008, GEF 2011, MRC)

1.5 Dispute settlement.

The resolution of conflicts is one of the most critical aspects of relations between countries. The Article on Conflict Resolution is in the Convention (12 the UNECE Convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes (Helsinki, 1992). The solutions to conflicts occurring between the parties to this Convention are given in Article 22. Article 4 points:

1. If a dispute exists with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention by two or more Parties, they shall pursue resolution of the dispute 3 by arbitration or by any other means appropriate to the parties to the dispute.

2. 6 Any Party may, at any moment afterwards, by the signature, ratification, approval, adoption or accessions to this Convention (Secretary-General of the United Nations acting as depositary of this Convention) declare in writing that either Party accepts either or more 9 of the following means of settlement of the dispute concerning dispute not resolved 6 pursuant to Paragraph 1 of this article.

(a) referral 3 of the dispute to the international court of Justice;

(b) arbitration in accordance with the procedure.

3. If all of the methods 6 of resolving disputes provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article have been accepted by the parties to the conflict, the issue can only be referred to the International Court of Justice unless otherwise decided by the parties.

If 21 Article 22 of the Convention provides for a formula of deliberate preference imposed upon the resolution of disputes by arbitration or judicial procedure, should a conflict occurs 19 between two or more Parties concerning the understanding or implementation of the Convention, the Parties agree to settle a dispute not resolved under paragraph 1, paragraph 2. Finally, if any of the conflict resolution approaches referred to in paragraph 2 have been decided by the parties to the conflict, the dispute can not be refered to the United Nations International Court of Justice except as otherwise decided by the parties. If Article 22 of the Convention provides for a formula of deliberate preference imposed upon the resolution of disputes by arbitration or judicial procedure, should a conflict occurs between two or more Parties concerning the understanding or implementation of the Convention, the Parties agree to settle a dispute not resolved under paragraph 1, paragraph 2. Finally, if any of the conflict resolution approaches referred to in paragraph 2 have been decided by the parties to the conflict, the dispute can not be refered to the United Nations International Court of Justice except as otherwise decided by the parties. The Court reports all of its costs and submits to the Parties a final report on these costs) on the termination and setting up of bilateral and multilateral agreements.

International practice has not been common for recourse to judicial or arbitration proceedings for the resolution of water disputes. However, the international law of water has been a landmark in cases like the Lanu Lake arbitration decision (1957) or the International Court decision in the Gabcikova-Nadymaros project (1997). The Uruguayan pulp mills between Argentina and Paraguay which the International Court of Justice considered at the time that this guide was drawn up reflects the conviction of the States that international proceedings are the correct means of dealing with water disputes.

Conformity criteria for this clause. The Parties shall be obliged to try to settle the conflict in the event of such a conflict. In order not to make the conflict resolution process pointless, they must behave 8 in good faith taking into account the legitimate interests of the other party and seek to ensure that any action which could intensify the conflict is avoided. Where they are seeking the opinion of a third party (through mediation or through the use of «healthy offices»). When no agreement has been reached, given all efforts, there should not be an obligation to pursue a negotiated settlement in good faith.

Pursuant to the Manila Declaration on a Pacific Settlement of International Conflicts (the Manila declaration), adopted in 1982 by the U. N.'s General Assembly, the duty to resolve disputes peacefully includes all disputes between States, regardless of the problem or nature of the dispute. «Disagreements surrounding water-related issues are no exception to that rule.

2.3 Conclusion:

Considering the countries of Tajikistan and Afghanistan that in the plan to build new hydroelectric power plants. Lower countries like Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan which unlike the upper countries, are engaged in cotton production and also taking into account the CA problem of the drought of the Aral Sea, the Amu Darya river needs a better agreement that has the basic elements for sustainable management and river control. The Amu Darya needs more sustainable cooperation by the coastal countries. At present, the river has several agreements on the control and regulation of main rivers of Central Asia [5], [7] also Central Asia has several regional organizations such as IFAS and ICWC to control and manage the rivers, however these organizations are too weak for in order to effectively manage and control water resources. Subsequently, a negative tension appears between the countries [9].

To strengthen the relationship between countries located on the banks of the Amudarya river in the field of water resources management and to prevent conflicts between countries, the Amudarya needs agreements that have:

1 Scope of agreement

− type of water resource underground and aboveground,

− precise definition of watercourse and use of water resources

− —coverage of the agreement (geographical area)

2. Legal Norms

− The principle of fair and reasonable use, principles of conservation and restoration of the ecosystem, principles of cooperation, and the rights of countries

− Rules of content (general or accurate)

3. procedural rules

− Rules of procedure (obligation to cooperate)

− notification system and information exchange between countries

4. Institutional Mechanisms

− common (regional) organization as ICWC, IFAS, BWO.

Organizations / bodies (Ministerial level; others) to resolve disputes and to achieve equity in the use and protection of water and natural resources

5. Settlement of disputes

− Prevention of disputes (consultations)

− Settlement of disputes

− Verification of compliance with requirements (reporting; simplification of procedures;

Applying the above five basic elements selected from international practice, it is possible to eliminate insecurity (in economic weak countries like Afghanistan) by mutual support between countries. All this is based on trust in the new clauses of the agreement. Thanks to the institutional framework, each coastal state will not be left alone with the expected problems that can be identified in frequent meetings with country representatives. Collaboration 1 within the framework of the new agreement can be an important contribution that will allow earlier identification of potential sources of disagreement and the prevention of conflicts between riparian states, thus contributing to the strengthening of peace and security. Continuous cooperation through the mechanisms of the Convention (such as creating transparency in the management and use of water at the national level, exchange data, joint work with institutions of other countries, transparency of data for neighboring countries along the river, borrowed assistance associated with experience in management or operation) allows you to bypass disagreements and solve problems.


  1. Руководство по внедрению конвенции (2009) ECE/MP.WAT/2009/L.2
  2. Jacqueline Peel, Ruth MacKenzie (3мая2012)Principles of International Environmental Law Philippe Sands, https: // frontmatter/9781108420952_frontmatter.pdf, Cambridge University Press 978–1–108–42095–2
  3. A. Allan, P. Jones, Dr Alistair, Dr Patricia K. Wouters, Dr S.Vinogradov, (2005) Sharing Transboundary Waters An Integrated Assessment of Equitable Entitlement,
  4. Haroon Ahmad Haleemzai1, Atiqullah Sediqi, (October 30, 2018) Impacts of Water Development Plans on Regional Water Cooperation-A Case Study of Amu River Basin. Scientific Research Publishing, paperinformation.aspx?paperid=88195
  5. 7 Agreement between the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan on Cooperation in the Field of Joint Management on Utilization 27 and Protection of Water Resources from Interstate Sources (Alma-Ata on the 18th of February 1992.)
  6. Vinogradov, S. and 14 Langford, V. P. E. (2001) Managing Transboundary Water Resources in the Aral Sea Basin: In Search of a Solution //
  7. Agreement on joint activities in addressing the Aral Sea and the zone around the Sea crisis, improving the environment, and enduring the social and economic development of the Aral Sea region (1993)
  8. Barbara Janusz-Pawletta (2014) Current legal challenges to governance of transboundary water resources in central asia and joint management arrangements BULLETIN Abay Kazakh National Pedagogical University
  9. Martin Russell, (September 2018) Water in Central Asia An increasingly scarce // EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service PE 625.181
  10. Tamar Meshel (2016) The Evolution of Interstate Arbitration And The Peaceful Resolution of Transboundary Freshwater Disputes
  11. Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman, Olli Varis & Tommi Kajander (12.2004) Integrated Water Resources Management: The Seven Mismatches: Water Resources Development, Vol. 20, No. 4, 565±575,
  12. Patricia Wouters and Sergei Vinogradov (01.01.2003) Analysing the ECE Water Convention: What Lessons for the RegionalManagement of Transboundary Water Resources?к_Convention_what_lessons_for_the_regional_management_of_transboudary_water_resources
Основные термины (генерируются автоматически): UNECE, MRC, ECE, GEF, NBI, ICPDR, ICWC, IFAS, LAD, BRIE.

Задать вопрос