Beyond semantics: Overcoming the normative incoherence surrounding the protection of international watercourse ecosystems

• Published date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12369
• Author: Yang Liu
• Date: 01 November 2020

336 

|

  © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/reel RECIEL. 2020;29:336–348.

1 |  INTRODUCTION

Approximatel y 263 transboundary lake an d river basins, shared by

145 States, cover nearly h alf of the Earth’s land sur face and account

for an estimated 6 0% of global freshwater flow.1 Since 1948, more

than 295 internatio nal watercourse agreement s have been con-

cluded.2 There is one glob al agreement with a limited numb er par-

ties, the 1997 United Nat ions Convention on the Law of the

Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses (UNWC),3 and

two regional agr eements specific to this f ield, namely the 1992

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)

Convention on the P rotection and Use of Transboundar y

Watercourses and International L akes (UNECE Water Convention)4

and the 200 0 South African Developm ent Community Revised

Protocol on Share d Watercourse (Revised SADC Protoco l).5

Furthermore, 80% of watercourse agreements do not include all

co-riparian cou ntries, and around 6 0% of international water courses

lack agreements.6

Within this diverse collection of agreements, there are various

terms and defin itions of the shared waters cove red, which, in turn, di-

rectly impa cts the geographical s cope of the ecosystems of those

 1UN Water, ‘Transboun dary Waters: S haring Benefi ts, Sharing Re sponsibilit ies’ (UN

Water 2008) 1.

 2AT Wolf, ‘The Atlas of Int ernational Fre shwater Agree ments’ (Unite d Nations

Environment Programme 2002) 3.

 3United Natio ns Convention on t he Law of Non-Nav igational Uses o f Internationa l

Watercourse s (adopted 21 May 1997, entere d into force 17 August 2 014) 2999 UNTS

52106 (UNWC) (37 par ties).

 4Convention on t he Protectio n and Use of Transboun dary Watercou rses and

Internatio nal Lakes (adop ted 17 March 1992, enter ed into force 6 Oct ober 1996) 1936

UNTS 33207 (UNEC E Water Convention) (4 4 parties).

 5Revised Proto col on Shared Wate rcourses in the S outhern Afri can Developm ent

Communit y by Angola, Bots wana, Democ ratic Republi c of the Congo, Leso tho, Malawi,

Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia,

Zimbabwe (ad opted 7 August 20 00, entered i nto force 22 Septe mber 2003) LE X-

FAOC015902 (Revis ed SADC Protocol ) (14 parties).

 6S Brels, D Coat es and F Loures, ‘ Transboundar y Water Resource s Management: T he

Role of Interna tional Watercou rse Agreeme nts in Impleme ntation of the CB D

(Secretar iat of the CBD 200 8)’ 20.

Received: 12 Jul y 2020 

|

 Accep ted: 11 October 2020

DOI: 10 .1111/reel .12369

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Beyond semantics: Overcoming the normative incoherence

surrounding the protection of international watercourse

ecosystems

Yang Liu

Correspondence

Email: yang.liu@ugent.be

Funding Information

China Scholarship Council

Abstract

Protecting and preserving the ecosystems of international watercourses requires a co-

herent normative framework. Problems can arise where inconsistent terms are used to

define and describe these shared resources. This leads to possible normative incoher-

ence around the duties to protect and preserve ecosystems. At the heart of the matter

are the diverse definitions used for shared freshwaters and international ecosystems.

In many cases, there is a ‘terrestrial gap’—the geographical space created by the terms

used to describe ‘international watercourse’ on the one hand, and ‘ecosystem’ on the

other. More often than not, the former is defined in narrow geographical terms, while

the latter is more broadly cast, to include related terrestrial elements. This article ex-

plores how the potential normative incoherence related to the protection and preser-

vation of the ecosystems of an international watercourse might be overcome through

three approaches, which are explored in treaty practice across the field.