Lessons on cooperation building to manage water conflicts in the Aral Sea Basin; Technical documents in hydrology: pc-cp series; Vol.: 11; 2003

2.3.1. Correlation with Principal International Water Laws 
Unfortunately, international water law cannot serve as a good guide for the definition 
and elaboration of new legal regulations in the Aral Sea Basin; in the most important 
aspects, the interested states have been unable to find clear recommendations in the 
main documents relating to water law. Two conventions (the ECE/UN Convention of 
1992 and the UN Convention of 1997), which contrast with the Helsinki Rules of 1966, 
cause confusion in understanding particular principles for specialists from the region. 
The following questions remain unanswered:
● 
What is the subject of joint actions of the riparian countries: a watershed (as in 
the Helsinki Rules), transboundary water resources, or an international 
watercourse? From the hydrological viewpoint, the notion of a “watershed” 
conforms to the principles of integrated water resources management (IWRM). It 
requires common basin (not river) management. The notion of “transboundary 
water resources” (Convention ECE/UN 1992) is more narrow, and the notion of 
an “international watercourse” (Convention UN 1997) is incomprehensible and is 
complicated from the hydrological point of view. 
● 
What are the criteria for “equitable and reasonable” water use, which should 
make it possible to formulate principles of water allocation among countries? 
● 
The conventions do not preserve the principal provision of international law: “not 
to cause harm.” Also neither convention contains “previous water use” as a 
factor of water use, which was presented in the Helsinki Rules. 
● 
What are the rights of present water users if limited development or degradation 
of rivers, deltas, and water bodies has previously damaged them? 
● 
Why do these documents shift their terms from any damage to sensible damage 
and then to significant damage? The parameters of sensibility or significance are 
not defined. What should be agreed if the damage has been already caused by 
previous activities? 
Those points could be given as recommendations to states about how they should 
approach principle of water allocation by taking into account equity, parity, “do no 
harm,” and so on. 
21 

---