2015 Agreement on Declaration of Principles
Therefore, the DoP is not a binding treaty, as not all international agreements are necessarily a treaty. It is a simple set of known principles with no defined subject. In addition, the document is neither ratified by the Ethiopian Parliament nor deposited with the United Nations Secretariat. She went on to cite Sudan`s “colossal” efforts to persuade Egypt and Ethiopia to sign the Declaration of Principles in 2015 and accept an initiative by the Prime Minister of Khartoum in June 2020 to promote dialogue on outstanding issues. The Sudan has also responded to the efforts of South Africa and the African Union, which have participated in all rounds of negotiations, to find an internal solution to the dispute. In the last round, Khartoum proposed to transform the negotiating mechanism into a mediation platform involving the United Nations, the European Union and South Africa, all of which had been observers in previous rounds. “Ethiopia has rejected all these proposals,” she said, adding that the Council should call on the three states to resume African Union-led talks, involving international mediators, to ensure that Ethiopia refrains from taking unilateral measures. She said “unequivocally” that this is a “just cause” that will ensure the dam is filled and operated in accordance with a legally binding agreement. A silence from the Council sends the wrong signal and signals its tacit agreement that the measures taken by Ethiopia are acceptable, she stressed. b.
An agreement on the annual operating guidelines and guidelines for the Renaissance Dam, which owners may adjust from time to time. DINH QUY DANG (Vietnam) said there is a growing trend to use international waterways in a way that does not guarantee the legitimate rights and interests of riparian states, especially those downstream. He stressed the importance of further codification and development of international law on the sustainable use of transboundary watercourses, including through the United Nations Convention on the Right to the Use of International Watercourses Without Navigation. Referring to the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, he said all parties concerned should build on the results already achieved and implement the 2015 Declaration of Principles Agreement. It is also high time for the African Union to accelerate its efforts to assist Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan in resolving outstanding issues, including legal and technical issues, he stressed. GERALDINE BYRNE NASON (Ireland) said that it was clear that a negotiated solution was the only solution to the critical issue we are discussing today. “A sustainable agreement on how the dam will be managed is absolutely crucial for the long-term stability and development of the entire region,” she stressed, noting that cooperation on transboundary waters is essential to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan are bearing first-hand the effects of climate change, population growth and rapid urbanization, which will only exacerbate the challenges of water management. “Parties are right when they look to the future of their own people, but they must do so in relative harmony and together,” she stressed. She referred to the efforts of the African Union to lead the negotiations and the facilitation provided by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and said that these complex talks should continue to rely on the necessary technical expertise and political support. In the meantime, the three States should avoid measures that could affect the prospects for an agreement and redouble their efforts to review confidence-building measures, reduce tensions and build confidence.
As mentioned in the policy statement, this could include a mutual agreement on the exchange of information with the support of observers, she said. Therefore, an agreement on known principles is not a treaty that can be governed by international law, and the agreement has nothing but reaffirming the principles of international law. The mere citation of the GERD in this document cannot fully define the purpose of the agreement. Ultimately, consent or disagreement with a principle of international law does not change the duty of States arising from the principles in international relations. Nor should these principles, in their application, conflict with other principles of international law. The sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States surpass any other principle of international law. One manifestation of state sovereignty is the right to participate in treaty negotiations with free and full consent. No State is obliged to negotiate and conclude an agreement without its consent. The failure of an agreement after a series of negotiations is by no means the fault of the negotiating states. The stated goal can only be achieved through basin-wide agreement on the use of the Nile.
It is not through an agreement on the GERD that the three states can meet their growing demand for the Nile in order to use it as a source of livelihood and development for the people of the three countries. Concern for the Nile is also not limited to the peoples of the three nations. So much so that the DoP has a goal vis-à-vis the GERD. Finding the purpose and purpose of the DoP beyond the preamble is still difficult, and such a provision is not included in the text. In the main part of the text, only the principles are mentioned. Principle II, for example, provides the purpose of the GERD, which is bizarre since the dam owner has decided and knows the purpose of his dam before starting construction. Finally, is it acceptable to decide with non-dam owners on the objective of a unilateral dam project? Principles III and IV incorporate the well-known principles of international water law. But these principles still apply only to a basin-wide transboundary river agreement, not to a single project on the river. Prior consent is required to regulate the construction of the dam. But the CFA, which could have regulated any project in the basin, remains ineffective, as the required number of states for entry into force has not yet been ratified. What is serious is that Egypt and Sudan opposed this river-wide agreement. In 2013, Ethiopia`s parliament ratified a controversial treaty to replace colonial-era agreements that gave Egypt and Sudan most of the Nile`s water.
Egypt, he continued, is seeking to conclude a legally binding, fair and reasonable agreement that includes provisions to mitigate negative effects and protect coastal interests from harm, while ensuring that its water security is not compromised by the operation of Africa`s largest hydropower plant. “An agreement is not out of reach,” he stressed. The repeated failure of the negotiations is not due to a lack of scientific legal expertise, but to Ethiopian intransigence. “The cause of this crisis is political,” he said, calling Addis Ababa`s position a community or charity under the illusion that the Blue Nile is an internal river that he can use for his exclusive advantage. Ethiopia refuses to sign a legally binding agreement and has instead proposed labeling the text as mere guidelines and rules. .