BlogsEventsFeaturesImage galleriesMediaMFAT speeches200520062007200820092010Media contact informationMinisters releasesPublications
Shared Natural Resources
Mr Chairman
We applaud the Commission’s efforts on the topic of “Shared natural resources” and thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Chusei Yamada, for his continuing work. Water is fundamental to human survival, and this topic will become increasingly important as underground aquifers represent the overwhelming majority of the world’s freshwater supply.
We support the Special Rapporteur’s approach to the topic and in particular seeking assistance from hydrogeologists and other experts to ensure the Commission’s work benefits from up to date scientific knowledge. The legal norms developed should make sense to those working with aquifers at a practical level. We acknowledge that there is a lot more work to do. At the same time we note the considerable progress that has been made in the Working Group and we hope that witHEnough time at next year’s session, the Commission will be able to complete a first reading for this topic.
The focus of the draft articles as they stand is on the obligations of the States in which the particular transboundary aquifer is located. That is entirely appropriate. But given the critical importance of aquifers for the future, it may be appropriate to acknowledge a wider international dimension by including some very general duties applicable to all States. This would provide a useful context for the specific obligations on transboundary aquifer states and the obligations on other relevant States such as those located in the transboundary aquifer’s recharge or discharge zones. Such a structure would also reflect the flow of more general to more specific obligations through the global, regional and national levels that is followed in a number of other international regimes dealing witHEnvironmental matters.
In making this suggestion, however, we recognise that the way in which transboundary aquifers are managed has to take account of the specific features of each individual aquifer, and in practical terms must be worked out by the relevant countries at the regional or local level. Accordingly, we are inclined to think that the draft provisions may be more effective if the final form of the work is cast as recommendatory principles rather than a convention. The risk with a convention on this kind of topic is whether enough States will be sufficiently motivated to become party to it and bring it into force. In that regard we note that the Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational uses of Watercourse of 1997 is still not in force. In contrast, a set of recommendatory principles would represent an authoritative statement of the international standards and best practice that should be followed and given practical effect in appropriate detail at the bilateral and regional level. As such it could be expected to be the framework against which the necessary bilateral and regional negotiations would be conducted.
Unilateral acts of States
Mr Chairman
New Zealand welcomes the eighth report on the topic of “Unilateral acts of States”, and thanks the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Victor Rodríguez-Cedeño, for his tireless work on the topic. We appreciate it has been a difficult topic for the Commission.
The case studies in the Special Rapporteur’s report are very useful. They illustrate the essential point of this topic – that unilateral actions of states can produce legal effects and, in relatively unusual circumstances, may result in a State being bound by its actions even though this may not have been its intent.
We agree with members of the Commission who stated that on this topic it would not be appropriate to attempt to produce definitions and rules comparable to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties regime. We consider that the circumstances of a particular unilateral act that may give rise to legal effects are so diverse as to be almost impossible to codify. The case studies demonstrate well that unilateral acts are very dependent upon their contextual factors. In this regard we note the useful work undertaken by the Working Group on this subject and encourage the Commission to conclude its work on this topic by drawing some reasonably broad conclusions from the case studies it has been considering. That would be a useful contribution to the product of the Commission for this current quinquennium.
Reservations to treaties
Mr Chairman
New Zealand welcomes the tenth report on the topic of “Reservations to treaties” and thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Alain Pellet, for his thorough and careful work. The report contains a great deal of very useful material particularly on the difficult issue of reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty. We see no particular difficulties in the guidelines adopted by the Commission during this last session.
We will, however, be very interested in the outcome of the Commission’s further consideration of the draft guidelines relating to reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. In that regard we have some doubts about whether it will prove possible or useful to spell out in the form of a guideline what constitutes the object and purpose of any given treaty. It may be that some treaties will have more than one object and purpose. We also query whether after close scrutiny it will prove possible to say categorically that particular categories of reservation will always be prohibited as contrary to the object and purpose of a treaty.
Thank you
Mr Chairman
