China and the global water conventions in light of recent developments: Time to take a second look?

• Author: David J. Devlaeminck,Xisheng Huang
• Date: 01 November 2020
• Published date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12363

RECIEL. 2020;29:395–405.  

|

 395wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/reel © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC

1 |  INTRODUCTION

The law of internati onal watercourses has b een codified and pro gres-

sively develope d primarily through the dr afting, adoption and entr y

into force of two inter national legal instrume nts: The 1997 United

Nations (UN) Conven tion on the Law of the Non-nav igational Uses of

International Watercourses (Waterco urses Convention),1 and the

1992 Convention on the Prot ection and Use of Transboun dary Rivers

and International Lakes (Water Convent ion).2 Collectively referred to

here as the global water conventions, they offer complementary, yet

distinct fr ameworks for the joint managem ent of transboundary

freshwater reso urces. Both conventions are base d on the

foundational norms of equitable and reasonable utilization and the

due diligence obli gation not to cause signifi cant harm,3 supported by

a general dut y to cooperate and a series of p rocedural rules incl uding

information sharing and consultation.4 In spite of their similarities,

they also have their d ifferences. Whereas th e Water Convention

places more emp hasis on preventing transbou ndary harm and pro-

tecting water q uality, the Watercourses Co nvention places more em-

phasis on the equitable and reasonable allocation of water resources.5

In spite of this, the se conventions are recognized as comp lementary

frameworks , both of which are now in force and open g lobally for

 1Convention on t he Law of the Non-n avigational Us es of Internatio nal Watercourse s

(adopted 21 May 1997, enter ed into force 17 Augus t 2014) 36 ILM 700 (Wate rcourses

Convention).

 2Convention on t he Protectio n and Use of Transboun dary Rivers a nd Lakes (adopt ed 17

March 1992; enter ed into force 6 Oct ober 1996) 1936 UNTS 269 (Wate r Convention).

 3Watercourse s Convention (n 1) ar ts 5, 6 and 7; Water Conve ntion (n 2) arts 2 (2c) and

2(1).

 4Watercourse s Convention (n 1) ar ts 8, 9 and 17; Water Conve ntion (n 2) art 2(6), 6 , 9(2)

and 10. Prior not ification is a lso an import ant procedura l norm of the law of int ernational

watercours es found in the Wate rcourses Conv ention (art 12), b ut it is not explici tly

found in the Wate r Convention.

 5A Tanzi, ‘UN Econom ic Commission fo r Europe Water Conve ntion’ in F Rocha Lo ures

and A Rieu-Cl arke (eds), The UN Watercourses Convention in Force: Strengthening

International Law for Transboundary Water Management (Routledge 2013) 231.

Received: 19 Febru ary 2020 

|

 Accep ted: 6 August 2020

DOI: 10 .1111/reel .12363

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

China and the global water conventions in light of recent

developments: Time to take a second look?

David J. Devlaeminck  | Xisheng Huang

Correspondence

Email: huangxisheng@cqu.edu.cn

Funding Information

Fundamenta l Research Funds for th e

Central Universities: Project No. 2019

CDJSK 08 XK 07; Nationa l Social Science

Fund of China, Key Pr ojects: Projec t No.

14ZDC0 29

Abstract

China is an import ant yet often misunderstood upst ream neighbour on many trans-

boundary water courses. In 1997, after participat ing in the drafting process of the

United Nations Conventio n on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of Intern ational

Watercourses, China, a long with Burundi and Turkey, voted against the Convention.

Since that time, however, both China’s prac tice and the law of international wate rcourses

have evolved. In explanatio n of its vote, China provided four reasons inclu ding a lack

of general agreement , that the Convention did not recognize sovereignt y, that select

provisions were imbalanced and disagreement regarding mandatory dispute settlement

mechanisms. This ar ticle aims to revisit these reasons in light of r ecent developments

and our current unde rstanding of Chinese pract ice and international water law, asking

the question: is it ti me for China to take a second look? Althou gh China’s vote concerned

the Watercourses Convention, given their complementarity, this article will discuss these

reasons in relation to bot h global water conventions, the 1997 Watercourses Co nvention

and the 1992 Water Convention.