Settlement of Disputes in Shared Water Law with an Emphasis on Judicial Precedent

Abstract

The scope of international law’s jurisdiction over shared rivers, freshwater resources, and other related matters has been established through treaties such as those of Barcelona, Iran and Iraq, Algeria, and Helmand, as well as regional conventions in Europe and the Amazon. These agreements have formed the basis of international water law for its subjects. Regarding the resolution of disputes in this domain, it must be noted that today, international judicial bodies, particularly the International Court of Justice (ICJ), serve as the primary authority in identifying customary international rules. The role of international judicial precedent in interpreting existing legal rules and declaring the customary status of such rules has led to the recognition of Article 38 of the ICJ Statute as a subsidiary source of international law. This means that the ICJ does not directly engage in rule-making but is responsible for identifying existing rules and clarifying ambiguities to facilitate dispute resolution between states. Although the ICJ does not consider the interests and concerns of border populations as a determining factor in defining territorial boundaries and does not directly establish borders based on this criterion, its rulings take into account the interests and concerns of border populations affected by such borders. The Court encourages states to consider this factor when demarcating their borders. In practice, states have demonstrated a degree of recognition of human factors, including environmental considerations, in defining and maintaining their borders. This legal perspective has gradually taken shape among states. Given the significance of borders and the legal framework of shared water resources, this study adopts a descriptive-analytical method to examine the resolution of disputes in shared water law, with an emphasis on judicial precedent.