Europe - UNEP

the protocol. While the committee is in its
infancy, it represents an important shift towards
developing mechanisms that ensure
international agreements are effectively
implemented.
At the basin level, only a few international
watercourse agreements contain provisions
relating to compliance. An example is the 2002
Sava Framework Agreement that, under Article
21, requires parties to agree and establish a
methodology for the permanent monitoring of
how the agreement as well as related activities
are being implemented. A stipulation of such a
compliance mandate is providing stakeholders
and the general public with access to relevant
information.
Several international agreements within
Europe make joint institutions responsible for
monitoring the implementation of agreements.
The 1998 Rhine Convention, for example,
provides that contracting parties must regularly
report to the Rhine Commission, “on legislative,
regulatory or other measures taken with a view
to implementing the rules of the Convention
and the decisions of the Commission.”
Biking along the Rhine River at Bacharach in the Mainz-Bingen district
in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. Photo credit: Bryan Pendergrass.
Furthermore, the Rhine Commission has also
defined water quality objectives with a joint
monitoring programme that provides the basis
upon which periodic evaluations of water quality
are conducted (UNECE, 2003b). Likewise, the
1994 Danube Convention obligates contracting
parties to report to the International Danube
Commission on matters relating to the
implementation of the convention. However, to
date, the assessment of the effectiveness of
measures taken pursuant to international basin
agreements is relatively weak (UNECE, 2003).
4.4 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In general, countries implement international
agreements without serious problems arising. If
the range of mechanisms identified in the
previous sub-sections (i.e., the exchange of
information, monitoring and assessment, public
participation and compliance strategies) have
been implemented at the basin level, the
likelihood of a dispute arising is minimised.
However, a mechanism must be in place to deal
with the minority of cases where a legal dispute
over the management of transboundary waters
occurs. Under international law, countries must
resolve disputes in a peaceful manner. Most
agreements relating to transboundary waters in
Europe follow the UN Charter that requires
countries to initially resolve their disputes through
negotiation and other diplomatic means
(Vinogradov, 2003). For instance, according to
the 2002 Sava Framework Agreement a solution
to a dispute between two or more parties about
the interpretation or implementation of the agreement
shall initially be sought by negotiation;
failing negotiation, upon request of one of the
parties, they may jointly seek mediation or
conciliation from a third party, or they may refer
the dispute to arbitrage. If, within six months from
submitting a request, the concerned parties are
unable to resolve the dispute, then any party may
request an independent fact-finding expert
committee to be established.
Similarly, under the 1992 Helsinki
Convention, the member countries have
discretion over which dispute resolution method
58 — Hydropolitical Vulnerability and Resilience along International Waters: Europe