The Nile River crisis and the Riparian States: An Egyptian jurist explains the Ethiopian infringement of international law

The Egyptian jurist, Counselor Dr. Mohamed Abdel Wahab Khafagy, Vice President of the State Council, continues to present the most important rulings of the International Court of Justice, through his recent studies, entitled: “The responsibility of the United Nations and Egypt’s historical rights in the waters of the Nile River, and the judicial stability of the International Court of Justice Documentation of Ethiopia’s aggression on the bases of rivers .. An analytical study in light of the United Nations intervention in counterpart water conflicts to protect the riparian states from harming them, and the principles adopted by the International Court of Justice, in the Unit of Interests for Waterways, to demonstrate Ethiopia’s aggression against the waters of the Nile River.

Egypt attaches the utmost importance to this issue, and it concerns the international community, and affects the stability of the entire region, and given the fallacies that Ethiopia offers to the international community, the Arab, African and global public opinion must be enlightened, in accordance with the rules of legal science, fairness, history and the provisions of the International Court of Justice.

The jurist, Dr. Muhammad Khafaji, presents the judicial principle of the Permanent International Court of Justice in 1937, or the so-called Permanent Court of International Justice, which was established in 1920, in light of the emergence of the League of Nations in 1919 before the establishment of the International Court of Justice in 1945, which was established under the Charter of the United Nations in June 26, 1945, based on the fact that the state’s projects on its lands should not affect the volume of water in the riparian states (LA MEUSE), and the principle of forbidding the state’s establishment on its lands by making a change or modification of the river’s waters, if necessary This causes heavy damage to a riparian country.

Khafaji says: The Permanent International Court of Justice issued in 1937, and it is called the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was established in 1920, with the formation of the League of Nations in 1919, before the establishment of the International Court of Justice in 1945, which was established under the Charter of the United Nations on June 26, 1945, A ruling on the withdrawal of water from the river “LA MEUSE” between the Netherlands and Belgium.

The Meuse River originates in northeastern France, and flows through Belgium and the Netherlands to the North Sea, where it forms a joint delta with the Rhine River, and the court indicated that despite the agreement concluded between the two countries, this does not prevent the river from being well exploited by all parties, and that The interests of the Netherlands and Belgium must be fully safeguarded, and the right of each country to the reasonable and just use of water, in addition to the fact that the exercise of this right is restricted by the basic international duty, which consists of not harming the other party.

The court concluded that there is a principle that prohibits the state, on its territory, to change or modify the river’s waters, if that results in serious damage to a riparian state. The International Court of Justice concluded, in its ruling issued on June 28, 1937, that the right of the riparian states to exploit the waters of the river is restricted not to cause harm to the other party.

Khafaji added that the ruling issued by the Permanent Court of International Justice, on June 28, 1937, on a case related to the diversion of water from the Meuse River, Holland and Belgium, in which the judgment was issued by a majority of ten votes to the judges against three. The Netherlands, and the allegations contained in the Belgian counter-lawsuit, with the determination of an important principle also, which is that for a state, any project within its territories on the river, affects the rights of another riparian state, with regard to the volume of water, this should not affect the volume of water, which It is drained from the river.

Dr. Muhammad Khafaji pointed out that the origin of the river conflict is that on May 2, 1863, Belgium and the Netherlands concluded a treaty, the purpose of which was “the permanent and final settlement of the system that governs the diversions of water from the Meuse River to feed the navigation channels and irrigation channels, and when development necessitated.” Economic of the Belgian and Dutch provinces of Limburg, expanding some channels, and building new businesses. In 1925, the two countries signed a new agreement aimed at settling disputes that arose regarding construction programs. Then the Netherlands began building and completing the Juliana Canal, and Belgium began building the Albert Canal, which Not completed at the time of sentencing.

Since no progress could be made in settling the points in dispute between the two countries, the Netherlands initiated proceedings in the court, by means of a unilateral request, based on the declarations made by both the Netherlands and Belgium, in which the lawsuit accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the court under Article 36 (a). Of the statute, except that Belgium filed a counter-lawsuit.

Khafaji explained that the Netherlands asked the Permanent International Court of Justice, basically, to decide and declare that the actions already carried out by Belgium are inconsistent with the Treaty of 1863, and that the proposed actions will contradict it, and then order Belgium to stop all works, to restore the state Conform to the Treaty of 1863, for all acts created in contravention of that treaty, and to stop any feeding contrary to the said treaty, and to refrain from any further such feeding.

Khafaji says: The Permanent International Court of Justice issued in 1937, and it is called the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was established in 1920, with the formation of the League of Nations in 1919, before the establishment of the International Court of Justice in 1945, which was established under the Charter of the United Nations on June 26, 1945 , A ruling on the withdrawal of water from the river “LA MEUSE” between the Netherlands and Belgium.

The Meuse River originates in northeastern France, and flows through Belgium and the Netherlands to the North Sea, where it forms a joint delta with the Rhine River, and the court indicated that despite the agreement concluded between the two countries, this does not prevent the river from being well exploited by all parties, and that The interests of the Netherlands and Belgium must be fully safeguarded, and the right of each country to the reasonable and just use of water, in addition to the fact that the exercise of this right is restricted by the basic international duty, which consists of not harming the other party.

The court concluded that there is a principle that prohibits the state, on its territory, to change or modify the river’s waters, if that results in serious damage to a riparian state. The International Court of Justice concluded, in its ruling issued on June 28, 1937, that the right of the riparian states to exploit the waters of the river is restricted not to cause harm to the other party.

Khafaji added that the ruling issued by the Permanent Court of International Justice, on June 28, 1937, on a case related to the diversion of water from the Meuse River, Holland and Belgium, in which the judgment was issued by a majority of ten votes to the judges against three. The Netherlands, and the allegations contained in the Belgian counter-lawsuit, with the determination of an important principle also, which is that for a state, any project within its territories on the river, affects the rights of another riparian state, with regard to the volume of water, this should not affect the volume of water, which It is drained from the river.

Dr. Muhammad Khafaji pointed out that the origin of the river conflict is that on May 2, 1863, Belgium and the Netherlands concluded a treaty, the purpose of which was “the permanent and final settlement of the system that governs the diversions of water from the Meuse River to feed the navigation channels and irrigation channels, and when development necessitated.” Economic of the Belgian and Dutch provinces of Limburg, expanding some channels, and building new businesses. In 1925, the two countries signed a new agreement aimed at settling disputes that arose regarding construction programs. Then the Netherlands began building and completing the Juliana Canal, and Belgium began building the Albert Canal, which Not completed at the time of sentencing.

Since no progress could be made in settling the points in dispute between the two countries, the Netherlands initiated proceedings in the court, by means of a unilateral request, based on the declarations made by both the Netherlands and Belgium, in which the lawsuit accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the court under Article 36 (a). Of the statute, except that Belgium filed a counter-lawsuit.

Khafaji explained that the Netherlands asked the Permanent International Court of Justice, basically, to decide and declare that the actions already carried out by Belgium are inconsistent with the Treaty of 1863, and that the proposed actions will contradict it, and then order Belgium to stop all works, to restore the state Conform to the Treaty of 1863, for all acts created in contravention of that treaty, and to stop any feeding contrary to the said treaty, and to refrain from any further such feeding.