Dispute Settlement Procedures and Fresh Water: Multiplicity and Diversity at Stake

  • Laurence Boisson de Chazournes


A diverse array of dispute settlement procedures aid the protection and management of fresh water, and their great number contributes to the clarification of applicable norms and principles. The multifaceted nature of fresh water is reflected in both the types of disputes that have arisen and the diversity of the settlement institutions. In particular, the opening of dispute settlement mechanisms to several actors and the emergence of specialized bodies constitute a noticeable phenomenon. While water disputes benefit from the trend favoring the creation of new international dispute settlement mechanisms, some dispute settlement procedures may present challenges with respect to compliance with their outcomes. However, the variety and number of available mechanisms suggest States’ commitment to ensuring the protection of fresh water through rule of law-based dispute settlement.


World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Arbitral Tribunal Danube Delta Dispute Settlement Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aurescu B (2010) L’efficacité des dispositions sur le règlement des différends dans les conventions environnementales, étude de cas: Le projet ukranien du canal navigable “Bystroe” dans le delta du Danube. In: Aurescu B, Pellet A (eds) Actualité du droit des fleuves internationaux. Pedone, Paris, pp 265–283Google Scholar
  2. Boisson de Chazournes L (1995) La mise en œuvre du droit international dans le domaine de la protection de l’environnement: enjeux et défis. Revue générale de droit international public 1:37–76Google Scholar
  3. Boisson de Chazournes L (2008) The Rhine chlorides arbitration concerning the auditing of accounts (Netherlands - France) – Its contribution to international law. The Permanent Court of Arbitration Award Series, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, p 10, 57Google Scholar
  4. Boisson de Chazournes L (2010) The principle of Compétence de la Compétence in international adjudication and its role in an era of multiplication of courts and tribunals. In: Arsanjani MH, Katz Cogan J, Sloane RD, Wiessner S (eds) Looking to the future, essays on international law in honor of W. Michael Reisman. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 1027–1064Google Scholar
  5. Boisson de Chazournes L, Mbengue MM (2007) À propos du caractère juridictionnel de la procédure de non-respect du Protocole de Kyoto. In: Maljean-Dubois S (ed) Changements climatiques les enjeux du contrôle international. CERIC, Paris, pp 73–109Google Scholar
  6. Boisson de Chazournes L, Tignino M (2010) Le règlement des différends internationaux relatifs à l’eau, in L’eau et son droit. In: Études et documents du Conseil d’État. La Documentation Française, Paris, pp 489–514.Google Scholar
  7. Boisson de Chazournes L, Mbengue MM, Thomas UP (2009) Reflexions sur la relation entre la science, l’incertitude scientifique et l’Accord sur les mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires (SPS). In: Trigo Trindade R, Peter H, Bovet C (eds) Liber Amicorum Anne Petitpierre-Sauvain: Economie Environnement Ethique de la Responsabilité Sociale et Sociétale. Schulthess, Geneva, pp 43–56Google Scholar
  8. Boyle A (2007) Human rights or environmental rights? A reassessment. Fordham Environ Law Rev 18:471–511Google Scholar
  9. Del Castillo-Laborde L (2009) Case law on international watercourses. In: Dellapenna JW, Gupta J (eds) The evolution of law and politics of water. Springer, pp 319–335Google Scholar
  10. Hey E, Nollkaemper A (1992) The second international water tribunal. Environ Policy Law 22:82–87Google Scholar
  11. Kuijper PJ (2010) Conflicting rules and clashing courts: the case of multilateral environmental agreements, free trade agreements and the WTO. ICTSD’s programme on dispute settlement and legal aspects of international trade, (International centre for trade and sustainable development), issue paper n. 10, Geneva.
  12. Sands P (2010) Water and International Law: science and evidence in international litigation. Environ Law Manag 22:151Google Scholar
  13. Shany Y (2004) The competing jurisdictions of international courts and tribunals. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tanzi A, Pitea C (2003) Emerging trends in the role of non-state actors in international water disputes, resolution of international water disputes, peace palace papers. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 259–297Google Scholar
  15. Treves T (1997) Recent trends in the settlement of international disputes. Cursos Euromediterráneos Bancaja de Derecho Internacional I:395–437Google Scholar
  16. Treves T (2007) Fragmentation of International Law: the judicial perspective. Comunicazioni e studi 23:821–875Google Scholar
  17. Treves T, Pineschi L, Tanzi A, Pitea C, Ragni C, Romanin Jacur F (eds) (2009) Non-compliance procedures and mechanisms and the effectiveness of international environmental agreements. T.M.C. Asser Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Professor, Law FacultyUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations