Instant Ebook Access, One Click Away – Begin at ebookgate.

com

Preservation of Ecosystems of International

Watercourses and the Integration of Relevant Rules
An Interpretative Mechanism to Adddress the
Fragmentation of International Law 1st Edition Lee
Jing
https://ebookgate.com/product/preservation-of-ecosystems-of-
international-watercourses-and-the-integration-of-relevant-
rules-an-interpretative-mechanism-to-adddress-the-
fragmentation-of-international-law-1st-edition-lee-jing/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Get Instant Ebook Downloads – Browse at https://ebookgate.com

Click here to visit ebookgate.com and download ebook now
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Judicial integration and fragmentation in the

international legal system Philippa Webb

https://ebookgate.com/product/judicial-integration-and-fragmentation-
in-the-international-legal-system-philippa-webb/

ebookgate.com

The role of law in international politics essays in

international relations and international law Luc Reydams

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-role-of-law-in-international-
politics-essays-in-international-relations-and-international-law-luc-
reydams/
ebookgate.com

The Development of International Law by the International

Court of Justice 1st Edition Christian J. Tams

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-development-of-international-law-by-
the-international-court-of-justice-1st-edition-christian-j-tams/

ebookgate.com

International Assignments An Integration of Strategy

Research and Practice 1st Edition Linda K. Stroh

https://ebookgate.com/product/international-assignments-an-
integration-of-strategy-research-and-practice-1st-edition-linda-k-
stroh/
ebookgate.com
International Justice and the International Criminal Court
Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law Oxford Monographs
in International Law 1st Edition Bruce Broomhall
https://ebookgate.com/product/international-justice-and-the-
international-criminal-court-between-sovereignty-and-the-rule-of-law-
oxford-monographs-in-international-law-1st-edition-bruce-broomhall/
ebookgate.com

Regime Interaction in International Law Facing

Fragmentation 1st Edition Margaret A. Young

https://ebookgate.com/product/regime-interaction-in-international-law-
facing-fragmentation-1st-edition-margaret-a-young/

ebookgate.com

The Law of Arms Control International Supervision and

Enforcement Developments in International Law V 41 1st
Edition Guido Dekker
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-law-of-arms-control-international-
supervision-and-enforcement-developments-in-international-
law-v-41-1st-edition-guido-dekker/
ebookgate.com

The limits of international law 1st paperback ed Edition

Goldsmith

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-limits-of-international-law-1st-
paperback-ed-edition-goldsmith/

ebookgate.com

An Introduction to the Theory of Mechanism Design 1st

Edition Tilman Borgers

https://ebookgate.com/product/an-introduction-to-the-theory-of-
mechanism-design-1st-edition-tilman-borgers/

ebookgate.com
Preservation of Ecosystems of International Watercourses and the Integration
of Relevant Rules
International Water Law Series

Series Editor

Stephen C. McCaffrey

Editorial Board

Laurence Boisson de Chazournes

Edith Brown Weiss
Lucius Caflisch
Joseph Dellapenna
Malgosia Fitzmaurice
Christina Leb
Owen McIntyre
Salman M.A. Salman
Attila Tanzi
Patricia Wouters

VOLUME 2

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/iwl

 Preservation of Ecosystems of
International Watercourses and
the Integration of Relevant Rules
An Interpretative Mechanism to Address
the Fragmentation of International Law

Βy

Lee Jing

LEIDEN | BOSTON
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lee, Jing, author.

Preservation of ecosystems of international watercourses and the integration of relevant rules an
interpretative mechanism to address the fragmentation of international law by / Lee Jing.
pages cm. — (International water law series)
Originally published as author’s thesis (doctoral – University of Dundee), 2013.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-26838-8 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-26839-5 (e-book)
1. Watershed management—Law and legislation. 2. Environmental law, International. 3. International rivers
4. Freshwater ecology—Government policy. I. Title.

K3498.L44 2014
346.04’69162—dc23

2014019416

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering
Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities.
For more information, please see brill.com/brill-typeface.

issn 2351-9606
isbn 978 90 04 26838 8 (hardback)
isbn 978 90 04 26839 5 (e-book)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

To my parents, Lee Ah Hoy and Kuan Gim Siew

∵
Contents

Foreword xi
by Professor Dr. Patricia Wouters
Preface and Acknowledgements xiv
List of Abbreviations xvii

Introduction: Preserving Ecosystems of International

Watercourses 1

1 The Fragmentation of International Law and Its Integration:

Interpretation and Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969 Vienna
Convention 19
1 Fragmentation of International Law on International Watercourse
Ecosystems 24
2 Systemic Integration, Interpretation, and Article 31(3)(c) of the
1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 35
3 Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention:
An Examination 44
4 Article 31(3)(c): A Tool of Integration? 51

2 Relevant Preservation of Ecosystems of International Watercourses—

An Ecosystem Approach 56
1 ‘Relevant’ Rules 56
2 Emergence of the Ecosystem Approach 68
3 ‘Relevant’ as Informed by the Ecosystem Approach 86
3.1 The 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 89
3.2 The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity 94
4 Concluding Remarks 99

3 Rules of International Law Applicable in the Relations between the

Parties: A Review of Existing Interpretation 101
1 Rules of International Law 101
2 Applicable in the Relations between the Parties 109
2.1 Bindingness 114
2.2 Legal Bindingness 120
2.3 What is Applicable must be Binding? 121
3 A Discussion of ‘the Parties’ 130
4 The Four Possible Constructions of ‘the Parties’ 140
5 Applicable in the Relations between the Parties—A Reflection 151
viii contents

4 Rules of International Law Applicable in the Relations between the

Parties: An Interactional Theory of Law 156
1 An Interactional Theory of International Law 157
2 Lon L. Fuller’s Interactional Theory of Law and a Framework for an
Interactional Theory of International Law 164
2.1 Shared Understanding 171
2.2 Internal Morality of Law 177
2.3 Practice of Legality and the Community of Practice 196
3 Concluding Remarks and a Proposal for Reinterpretation 204

5 Ramsar Convention: Rules of International Law Applicable in the

Relations between the Parties 214
1 Shared Understanding 215
2 Satisfaction of the Criteria of Legality 232
2.1 Generality 233
2.2 Promulgation 236
2.3 Non-Retroactivity 236
2.4 Clarity 237
2.5 Non-Contradiction 240
2.6 Law Not Requiring the Impossible—Reasonableness 242
2.7 Constancy 245
2.8 Congruence between Official Action and Declared Rules—
The Observation of the Rule of Law 247
3 A Practice of Legality (Norm Application) 250
4 Applicable in the Relations between the Parties 253
5 Concluding Remarks 257

6 Biodiversity Convention: Rules of International Law Applicable in the

Relations between the Parties 259
1 Shared Understanding 259
2 Satisfaction of the Criteria of Legality 281
2.1 Generality 281
2.2 Promulgation 284
2.3 Non-Retroactivity 285
2.4 Clarity 286
2.5 Non-Contradiction 289
2.6 Law Not Requiring the Impossible—Reasonableness 293
2.7 Constancy 296
2.8 Congruence between Official Action and Declared Rules—
The Observation of the Rule of Law 299
Contents ix

3 A Practice of Legality (Norm Application) 308

4 Applicable in the Relations between the Parties 313
5 Concluding Remarks 318

7 Shall Take into Account, Together with the Context—Systemic

Integration: An Architecture 320
1 ‘Context’ 321
1.1 ‘Context’ in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties 323
1.2 ‘Context’ in Judicial Practice 325
1.3 Preamble as Part of Context 327
1.4 Annexes as Part of Context 330
1.5 Text as Part of Context 331
2 Shall be taken into Account 346
3 Case Analyses 352
3.1 The Case of Oil Platforms 352
3.2 The Case of Esphahanian’s Claims 361
4 Systemic Integration: An Architecture 366
5 Concluding Remarks 370

8 Systemic Integration: An Operationalisation 371

1 Stage I: Relevant 372
2 Stage II: Rules of International Law Applicable in the Relations
between the Parties 374
2.1 Ramsar Convention 376
2.2 Biodiversity Convention 379
3 Stage III: A Systemic Integration 382
3.1 The Context 383
3.2 Article 31(3)(c)—An Operationalisation 385
4 Concluding Remarks 389

9 Preservation of Ecosystems of International Watercourses and the

Integration of Relevant Rules: Reflection and Conclusion 392

Bibliography 401
Index 425
Foreword

How will we address one of the world’s most pressing issues—to ensure ‘water for
all’, especially during times of grave challenges? The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change most recent report, called an “official prophecy of doom”, details the
significant adverse impacts predicted to result from global warming. Millions will be
displaced, economies will fail and conflicts will increase.1 Many of these occurrences
will be linked to water: the IPPC study finds renewable surface water and groundwater
resources will be reduced significantly in most dry subtropical regions, increasing com-
petition for diminishing freshwater resources and threatening terrestrial and freshwa-
ter species. While these matters pose problems within a nation State, things become
exponentially more complex when considered within an international transbound-
ary context. With close to 300 major freshwaters crossing national borders around the
world, serving burgeoning economic needs and populations, the scale of the problem
is readily apparent. Add to this mix the enormous contemporary challenges related to
the effectiveness of international law and we have hard issues to address. How are we
to effectively implement the international rule of law that requires the protection and
preservation of the ecosystems that are integral to the transboundary water resources
shared around the world?
Dr. Lee Jing’s monograph, Preservation of Ecosystems of International Watercourses
and the Integration of Relevant Rules: An Interpretative Mechanism to Address the
Fragmentation of International Law, provides a robust and innovative legal analysis
of how we might implement the duty to preserve the ecosystems of international
watercourses. In so doing she contributes to addressing the two critical over-arching
questions identified above—the impending global water crisis, and the recurring
concerns about the effectiveness of international law. The book devises and applies a
three-tiered legal analytical framework, anchored on the interpretative mechanisms
offered under Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (VCLT),
to interrogate the systemic integration required to give meaningful effect to the duty to
preserve the ecosystems of international watercourses. Dr. Lee hones in on Article 20
of the 1997 Watercourses Convention (UNWC), which elaborates a global duty to
preserve the ecosystems of international watercourses, the first of this type of nor-
mative obligation (“Watercourses States shall, individually and, where appropriate,

1 Tom Bawden, “Official Prophecy of Doom: Global Warming will Cause Conflict, Displace
Millions and Devastate Economy” (The Independent—‎ 18‎‎
March‎2‎014) <http://www
.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/official-prophecy-of-doom-global-warm-
ing-will-cause-widespread-conflict-displace-millions-of-people-and-devastate-the-global-
economy-9198171.html> accessed 7 April 2014.
xii foreword

jointly, protect and preserve the ecosystems of international watercourses”). Through

applying her three-tiered framework (consolidated and applied in Chapter 8),
Dr. Lee reveals the troublesome state of fragmentation in this field, which militates
against the effective legal protection of the ecosystems of international watercourses.
Despite this, she finds that Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT provides an operational
platform for the systemic integration of the normative content of Article 20 of the
UNWC.
The monograph is structured in 10 chapters, presented in a systematic way that
identifies and addresses the legal issues linked with the legal protection of ecosystems
of international watercourses. Dr. Lee begins by setting the scene, introducing the
complex notion of ‘ecosystem’ and providing the legal parameters of her research.
The overall aim is to study the issue of fragmentation through a legal lens using the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 31(3)(c) as an operational inter-
pretative tool of the key relevant aspects of the norms in this field. Thus, the work
revolves around the specific means through which to shed light and clarity on the nor-
mative content of Article 20 of the UNWC. It is an ambitious and thorough treatment.
Following a detailed explanation of the legal analytical framework that is devised for
this study, Dr. Lee selects the case studies of the Ramsar Convention and Biodiversity
Convention to apply her framework. The research culminates with proposing a struc-
ture for the systemic integration of the relevant rules of international law in this
area. Through this approach she succeeds in offering an enlightened application of
Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT, elevating its operational reach as a tool capable of unravel-
ling the fragmented legal approach to protecting the world’s transboundary freshwater
ecosystems. This provides significant insight into how international law might work
effectively in this complex field.
On a personal note, it has been my sincere pleasure to supervise, and to continue
to interact with, Dr. Lee Jing (now in Malaysia). She continues to be a true inspiration!
We need more legal scholars thinking out of the box like this young woman, who has
worked so hard and achieved so much, with surely more to come! As a female scholar
she has faced a number of added challenges that I appreciate fully and would like to
recognise here. Well done Jing! Thanks for providing me with this true honour to offer
a foreword to this superb study.
The global community faces difficult challenges on a number of fronts—without
water resources and the ecosystems that sustain them, civilisation will suffer serious
adverse consequences. In an international context it is essential to be able to identify
and implement the rules of law that apply. In the current state of affairs the duty to
preserve the world’s transboundary water ecosystems is confounded by fragmenta-
tion and incoherence. Dr. Lee provides a legal analytical framework and detailed study
of how we might unravel the confusion in this field. It provides us all with pause for
deeper reflection.
Foreword xiii

If we have a right to benefit from the earth’s bounty, then we have the obligation to
respect, care for and restore the earth and its natural resources.2

Professor Dr Patricia Wouters

Xiamen Law School—China International Water Law Programme
University of Dundee Centre of Water Law, Policy and Science, under the
auspices of UNESCO

2 InterAction Council, “A Universal Declaration of Human Responsibility” (Report on the

Conclusions and Recommendations by a High-Level Expert Group Meeting Chaired by
Helmut Schmidt, 20–22 April 1997, Vienna, Austria) at p. 4 <http://interactioncouncil.org/
sites/default/files/1997%20UDHR.pdf>, cited in Dr. Lee’s Introduction.
Preface and Acknowledgements

This book is a revised and updated version of my Ph.D. thesis submitted to the
University of Dundee in 2013. The book highlights the unprecedented degradation of
freshwater ecosystems, exacerbated by the rampant exploitation of water resources.
The underlying motivation of the book is to call upon the international community
to reassess the natural limitation of the environment to support existing economic
growth and development. More importantly, it seeks to reestablish the importance of
the preservation of the internal structures and processes of ecosystems in their natural
or near natural condition in order to ensure the continued viability of freshwater eco-
systems to support human livelihood and the lives of all beings on earth.
The notion of the common heritage of mankind greatly influences the strive towards
the preservation of the environment in its natural form, where Article 20 of the 1997
Watercourses Convention made explicit the obligation of the international commu-
nity, apart from the international watercourse states, to preserve the ecosystems of
international watercourses. However, the interpretation and the subsequent applica-
tion of this obligation are complicated by the proliferation of international instru-
ments concerning the environment that leads to the congestion of treaties. Treaty
congestion seriously undermines the operational efficiency of each treaty. In response
to the apprehension raised over the undesirable consequences of treaty congestion,
which is one facet of the problems arising from the fragmentation of international law,
the potential of Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention as an interpretative
mechanism that enables the systemic integration of rules comes into the limelight.
The objective of the book, titled Preservation of Ecosystems of International
Watercourses and the Integration of Relevant Rules: An Interpretative Mechanism to
Address the Fragmentation of International Law, is to develop an interpretative frame-
work for the operationalisation of Article 31(3)(c) that allows the full realisation of its
potential as a tool of integration. Existing interpretations of Article 31(3)(c) are recon-
structed via the conceptual framework of the interactional theory of international law,
which interprets a rule of international law through the prisms of shared understand-
ing, criteria of legality, and a practice of legality. The reinterpretation of Article 31(3)(c)
provides a new understanding of the Article, which enables the realisation of its
systemic integration potential. The application of this framework of operationalisa-
tion in the interpretation of the obligation to preserve ecosystems of international
watercourses stipulated under Article 20 reflects contemporaneous development in
international environmental law, and enhances the normative content and scope of
Article 20.
The systemic integration potential realised through the operationalisation of
Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention proposed in this book would have lim-
Preface And Acknowledgements xv

ited application in the face of deep intransigence between international watercourse

states where occurrences of rupture in the cooperation between states are common.
It is vital to restate that a legal approach merely forms part of the solution to problems
arising from political asymmetries in international relations. This is anticipated in the
drafting of the UN Charter where it is provided that, in the event of dispute (or an
allegation of non-cooperation), Article 33 of the UN Charter imposes on the UN state
parties to seek the pacific settlement of disputes in accordance with the Article. The
pacific settlement of disputes includes negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation,
arbitration, judicial settlement, or to resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or
other peaceful means of their own choice, failing which, would invoke the authority
of the Security Council to call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
A genuine non-cooperation could be an indication of rogue state that is to be dealt
with more appropriately under the political arm of the UN. In this instance, a purely
legal approach would be incapable of resolving genuine political conflicts, where the
peaceful settlement of conflicts requires recourse to other means of dispute settle-
ment provided under the UN Charter.
Nevertheless, the ascertainment of the shared legal understanding implicit to a
rule of international law through the interactional framework indirectly promotes
cooperation in good faith between states, especially in the negotiation of new treaties
where existing international obligations committed in other international law-making
fora could serve as the catalyst of cooperation. This is what the present book is trying
to do, which is, to unravel the consensus among the international community on the
obligation to preserve ecosystems of international watercourses attained in various
international institutionalised treaty regimes and undertaken in a practice of legality.
The concrete evidence of state practice in relation to a declared rule of international
law on the obligation to preserve freshwater ecosystem of international watercourses
strengthens the common recognition of the international community that the obliga-
tion to preserve is indeed a licit concern of mankind.
I would not be able to complete this research without the generous funding pro-
vided by the Ministry of Higher Education, Government of Malaysia and the National
University of Malaysia (GGPM-2013-083). For the scholarship and the opportunity
to undertake my PhD Programme at the University of Dundee, I am deeply grateful to
Y.Bhg. Prof. Dato’ Dr. Mazlin Mokhtar and Puan Normah Adam.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisors Prof. Dr. Patricia
Wouters and Dr. Sarah Hendry for their valuable advice, unwavering support, and con-
stant encouragement. I would never be able to complete this research without their
insightful and critical comments; and the comforting words and a shoulder to lean on
when I am going through some of my deepest abysses. My supervisors are my pillars
of strength.
xvi preface and acknowledgements

In addition, I would like to thank my examiners, Prof. Attila Tanzi and Dr. Alistair
Rieu-Clarke, and the convenor of my viva voce, Prof. Colin Reid for a robust and in-
depth discussion of my thesis, and imparting words of wisdom that will continue to
inspire for years to come.
I thank everyone at the IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy, and Science, espe-
cially Prof. Chris Spray, Mr. Andrew Allan, Dr. Monica Garcia Quesada, Dr. Armelle
Guignier, Vishnu Rao, Dr. Michelle Lim Mei Ling, Dr. Sue Baggett, and Prof. Geoffrey
Gooch. Thank you for creating such a wonderful and conducive, yet fun environ-
ment for research and discussions. My gratitude to everyone at the Centre for Energy,
Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy, especially Martin Farnworth, Dr. Xiaoyi Mu,
Dr. Sergei Vinogradov, Angela Dunsire, Hugh Gunn, Rebecca Cree, Linn McFarlane,
and Kathleen Shortt; and the Phd Seminar team, Dr. Sarah Hendry, Dr. Janet Liao, and
Prof. Dr. Melaku Desta (now at the Faculty of Business and Law, Leicester De Montfort
Law School).
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Gordon Spark of the Academic
Skills Centre, University of Dundee who helped me with my English. I thank all librar-
ians, especially Mairi Robb and John McCaffrey of the Dundee University Library and
Ms. Elizabeth Kirk of the University Dundee School of Law for their encouragement
and kind assistance.
A huge thank you to my Phd family in Dundee, especially Komuniti Melayu Dundee,
Dr. Hugo Tremblay (who acted as my devil’s advocate and had never let me get away
with any argument easily), Dr. Dinara Ziganshina (who guided me through the treach-
erous path of a researcher, and read through the first draft of my thesis), Dr. Yumiko
Yasuda, Dr. Ana Maria, Dr. Tran Tran, Dr. Norfadhilah Mohamad Ali, Dr. Musa Abseno,
Dr. Mohamad Mova Al’Afghani, Dr. Daniel Behn, Dr. Christopher Len, Julius Nayak, Dr.
Bjørn-Oliver Magsig, and many others.
I am especially grateful to Dr. Gerard Briscoe for advising the drafting of my research
proposal at the initial stage of my research. To my current colleagues and friends at
the Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI) and the Faculty of Law
at the National University of Malaysia (UKM), thank you so much for your understand-
ing and support.
I am very grateful to Ms. Lisa Hanson, Assistant Editor at BRILL/Nijhoff Publishers
for her kind patience and support during the production of the book manuscript.
Finally, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my mentor, Y.Bhg. Prof.
Datin Noor Aziah Hj. Mohd. Awal, my family and friends for their encouragement,
patience, understanding, and love.

UKM Bangi, April 2014

List of Abbreviations

AB Appellate Body
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
CARU Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay
CBD Convention on Biodiversity
CETS Council of Europe Treaty Series
CMP Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of the Parties
CTR Claims Tribunal Reports
EC European Community
ECE Economic Commission for Europe
ECT Energy Charter Treaty
EEC European Economic Community
ETS European Treaty Series
GAOR General Assembly Official Records
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
ICTY International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for
Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the
Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991
IGOs Intergovernmental Organisations
ILA International Law Association
ILC International Law Commission
ILM International Legal Materials
ILR International Law Reports
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ITLOS International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MEAs Multilateral Environmental Agreements
MSENs Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms
NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-
East Atlantic
PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration
PCIJ Permanent Court of International Justice
Res Resolution
xviii list of abbreviations

SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological

Advice
SCM Agreement Subsidy and Countervailing Measures Agreement
Stat United States Statutes at Large
STRP Scientific and Technical Review Panel (Ramsar Convention)
Supp Supplement
TIAS Treaties and other International Agreements (US)
TRIPs Agreement Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights
TS Treaty Series
UKHL United Kingdom House of Lords
UN United Nations
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change
UNGA United Nations General Assembly
UNSC United Nations Security Council
UNTS United Nations Treaty Series
UNU United Nations University
Introduction: Preserving Ecosystems of
International Watercourses

In the field of environmental protection, vigilance and prevention are

required on account of the often irreversible character of damage to the
environment and of the limitations inherent in the very mechanism of repa-
ration of this type of damage.1

If we have a right to benefit from the earth’s bounty, then we have the obli-
gation to respect, care for and restore the earth and its natural resources.2

1 Article 20 of the Watercourses Convention and the Obligation to

Preserve

The sombre words above are enunciated in response to the danger of human-
ity going beyond the threshold of irreversible damage, where environmental
security is greatly threatened.3 The degradation of freshwater ecosystems pre-
dominantly caused by mismanagement and over-exploitation has heightened
the need for an effective water resources management regime especially in the

1 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (Judgment of 25 September 1997) [1997]

ICJ Reports 7, at p. 78, para. 141 <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7375.pdf> accessed
19 March 2014 (hereinafter: ‘Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros’). Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River
Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Judgment of 20 April 2010) [2010] ICJ Reports 14, at p. 76,
para. 185 (hereafter: the ‘Pulp Mills’ case) <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/135/15877.pdf>
accessed 19 March 2014.
2 InterAction Council, “A Universal Declaration of Human Responsibility” (Report on the
Conclusions and Recommendations by a High-Level Expert Group Meeting Chaired by
Helmut Schmidt, 20–22 April 1997, Vienna, Austria) at p. 4 <http://interactioncouncil.org/
sites/default/files/1997%20UDHR.pdf> accessed 19 March 2014. Oscar Arias Sanchez, “Some
Contributions to a Universal Declaration of Human Obligations” (April 1997) <http://inter
actioncouncil.org/some-contributions-universal-declaration-human-obligations> accessed
19 March 2014.
3 See Jutta Brunnée and Stephen J. Toope, “Environmental Security and Freshwater Resources:
A Case for International Ecosystem Law” (1994) 5 Yearbook of International Environmental
Law 41–76, at 41–52. Sandara Postel, Dividing the Waters: Food Security, Ecosystem Health, and
the New Politics of Scarcity (Worldwatch Paper 132, Worldwatch Institute 1996) at pp. 26–35.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004268395_�02

2 introduction

advent of climate change that has serious implications on water availability.4

In recognition of the need for an international regime to address legal prob-
lems arising from the conflict between competing uses of freshwater resources,
the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted the 1997 Watercourses
Convention in Resolution 51/229, which codified and progressively developed
international law on non-navigational uses of international watercourses.5
Chapter IV of the 1997 Watercourses Convention deals with the protec-
tion, preservation, and management of non-navigational uses of international
watercourses. It found its way into the 1997 Watercourses Convention as a
reflection of the conviction of parties that there was a need for a framework
convention that ensures not only the utilisation and development of inter-
national watercourses, but also their conservation, management, and pro-
tection for their optimal and sustainable utilisation.6 Article 20 of the 1997
Watercourses Convention provides that—

Watercourses States shall, individually and, where appropriate, jointly,

protect and preserve the ecosystems of international watercourses.7

The robust development of international law through the multiplication of

international instruments on international watercourses has contributed to
the emergence of a specialised regime known as international water law, or
international law on water resources. The precedent of Article 20 could be
traced from the initial imposition of an obligation to protect the environment

4 UN, “International Decade for Action ‘Water For Life’ 2005–2015” (undated) <http://www
.un.org/waterforlifedecade/quality.shtml> accessed 19 March 2014. In UNEP, “The UN-Water
Status Report on the Application of Integrated Approaches to Water Resources Management”
(UNEP, 2012) <http://www.unwater.org/downloads/UNW_status_report_Rio2012.pdf>
accessed 19 March 2014. Stephen M. Schwebel, “Third Report on the Law of Non-navigational
Uses of International Watercourses” (11 December 1981) [1982] II(1) Yearbook of International
Law Commission 65–191, UN Doc A/CN.4/348 and Corr.1 (hereinafter: ‘Schwebel 3rd Report’)
at p. 141. Ian R. Calder, Blue Revolution: Integrated Land and Water Resources Management
(2nd edn, Earthscan, UK and the USA, 2005). Sandara Postel, Dividing the Waters: Food
Security, Ecosystem Health, and the New Politics of Scarcity (Worldwatch Institute, 1996).
5 The Convention was adopted by 103 votes to three, with 27 abstentions. UNGA, “99th Plenary
Meeting” (51st Session of the General Assembly, 21 May 1997) A/51/PV.99, at p. 8 <http://
www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/51/PV.99> accessed 19 March 2014.
6 Preamble, Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Water-
courses (adopted 21 May 1997, not yet entered into force) reprinted in (1997) 36 ILM 700
(hereinafter: ‘1997 Watercourses Convention’).
7 1997 Watercourses Convention, Art. 20.
introduction 3

to the recent recognition of an ecosystem approach towards the maintenance

of ecosystem integrity in the practice of states and international organisations.8
The issue of environmental protection is a major concern in international
water instruments, where the obligation to protect the environment is found
in a plethora of water-specific regional and basin-wide instruments.
Despite a plurality of sources of law concerning watercourses’ utilisa-
tion and protection,9 due to the ad hoc and sectoral nature of this legal

8 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International

Lakes (done at Helsinki, 17 March 1992) (hereinafter: ‘1992 Helsinki Convention’), Art. 3(1)(i).
Robust development in the operationalisation of an ecosystem approach is undertaken
by the UNECE within the treaty regime of the 1992 Helsinki Convention. See UNECE, “Part
One Guidelines on the Ecosystem Approach in Water Management” (December 1993) ECE/
ENVWA/31 <http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/publications/documents/
Library/Old_documents_found_library/ECE_ENVWA_31_eng.pdf> accessed 19 March 2014;
UNECE, “Recommendations on Payments for Ecosystem Services in Integrated Water
Resources Management” (United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2007) <http://www.unece
.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/publications/documents/PES_Recommendations_web
.pdf> accessed 19 March 2014. UNECE, “Integrated Management of Water and Related
Ecosystems. Draft Guide to Implementing the Convention” (Draft Guide by the Chairperson
of the Legal Board, Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on the Protection and Use of
Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Fifth Session, Geneva, 10–12 November
2009) ECE/MP.WAT/2009/L.2 (31 August 2009) <http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/
env/documents/2009/Wat/MOP5/ECE.MP.WAT.2009.L.2_EN.pdf> accessed 19 March 2014.
See ILC “Draft Articles on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses
and Commentaries thereto and Resolution on Transboundary Confined Groundwater”
(Report of the International Law Commission on the Works of Its Forty-sixth Session,
2 May–22 July 1994, ORGA, Forty-ninth Session, Supplement No 10) UN Doc A/49/10 [1994]
II(2) Yearbook of International Law Commission 1–182, at p. 119, paras. 5 and 6 <http://legal.
un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/8_3_1994.pdf> accessed 4 April 2014
(hereinafter: ‘1994 Draft Articles and Commentaries’).
9 For a discussion on plurality of sources of law, and its subtle difference with legal plural-
ism, see William Twinning, “Normative and Legal Pluralism: A Global Perspective” (Seventh
Annual Herbert L. Bernstein Memorial Lecture in International and Comparative Law,
Duke University School of Law 7 April 2009) at p. 487 <http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=djcil> accessed 19 March 2014. See also Baudouin
Dupret, “Legal Pluralism, Plurality of Laws, and Legal Practices: Theories, Critiques, and
Praxiological Re-specification”, European Journal of Legal Studies: Issue 1 (An Open Access
Initiative by EUI Legal Researchers) <http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/17/84/22/
PDF/2007EjlsLegPlur.pdf> accessed 19 March 2014; Brian Z. Tamanaha, “Understanding
Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global” (2008) 30 Sydney Law Review 375–411;
and William W. Burke-White, “International Legal Pluralism” (2004) 25 Michigan Journal of
International Law 963–979.
4 introduction

order,10 there seems to be an emerging ‘structurisation’11 of international

water law. The recognition of the need for a systematic interpretation of
the universal, regional, and basin level laws applicable in the area of inter­
national freshwater resources “because each of them forms part of the interna-
tional legal system and they function and interact in the context of the system
as a whole”,12 supports the assertion of a structurisation of international water
law.13 More specifically, the UNECE Task Force on Legal and Administrative
Aspects prepared a comprehensive report on the relationship between the
1997 Watercourses Convention and the regional 1992 Helsinki Convention,
where the two Conventions are compared and differentiated.14
It is asserted that the two instruments are complementary in their mutual
relationship, and would contribute towards the crystallisation and consolida-
tion of norms on international water law in the ongoing process of an emer-

10 The sectoral nature of the legal order of international water law, which explains the
plurality of sources of international water law, is found in the form of a multitude of
bilateral, basin-wide, or regional agreements on transboundary watercourses. Castro
labelled the fragmented nature of international water law as normative bric-à-brac.
See Paulo Canelas De Castro, The Future of International Water Law (Luso-American
Foundation, Shared Water Systems and Transboundary Issues, with Special Emphasis on
the Iberian Peninsula, Lisbon, Portugal, 2000) (hereinafter: ‘Castro, The Future of IWL’) at
p. 158.
11 Castro, The Future of IWL, at p. 158, paras. (d) and (e). The ‘structurisation’ of international
water law is observed where the normative bric-à-brac is starting to evolve into an
emerging normative system akin to “an eclectic regulatory continuum . . . secured
by principles that are common to other segments of the international law of natural
resources and the environment”, where the concept of ‘the fundamental continuity of the
legal universe’ prevails.
12 Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, “Freshwater and International Law: The Interplay
between Universal, Regional and Basin Perspectives” (The United Nations World Water
Assessment Programme, United Nations World Water Development Report 3: Water in
a Changing World, Insights, UNESCO, UN-Water, 2009) <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0018/001850/185080E.pdf> accessed 19 March 2014.
13 See de Chazournes, “Freshwater and International Law: The Interplay between Universal,
Regional and Basin Perspectives”. See also Salman M.A. Salman, “The Helsinki Rules, the
UN Watercourses Convention and the Berlin Rules: Perspectives on International Water
Law” (2007) 23(4) Water Resources Development 625–640 for a study of interactions
between different instruments that purport to state the rules of international water law.
14 Attila Tanzi, “The Relationship between the 1992 UNECE Convention on the Protection
and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes and the 1997 UN
Convention on the Law of the Non Navigational Uses of International Watercourses”
(Report of the UNECE Task Force on Legal and Administrative Aspects, Geneva, February
2000) <http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/publications/documents/
conventiontotal.pdf> accessed 19 March 2014.
introduction 5

gence of international customary law. The interplay of norms stipulated under

these international instruments informs the body of knowledge on the obliga-
tion to protect the international watercourses environment, where the incor-
poration of this obligation in water-specific international instruments leads to
the crystallisation of this obligation in the international legal regime on inter-
national watercourses. Moreover, the positive assertion by the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) in the recent Pulp Mills case to preserve the ecological
balance of River Uruguay,15 confirms the emergence of the legal presump-
tion that “the preservation of the environment in the large is a licit concern
of all nations”.16
The obligation to preserve is an unusual aspect of environmental protec-
tion that has gradually generated international legal recognition, and will
likely gain broader recognition in the governance and management of inter-
national or other transboundary watercourses in the immediate future.17 The
obligation is applied in particular to the protection of freshwater ecosystems
in their ‘pristine and unspoilt condition’18 against harm and damage in order
to maintain their natural state. The Pulp Mills case, albeit indirectly, high-
lights and generates renewed attention to the importance of preservation in
preventing negative anthropogenic impacts on various components of water-
course ecosystems essential to the safeguarding of the ecological balance of an
international watercourse, where the protection of fauna and flora of the river
forms “part of [the parties’] obligation to preserve the aquatic environment”.19

15 See Pulp Mills case, at p. 56, paras. 187–188. The ICJ pronounced that—
“This vigilance and prevention is all the more important in the preservation of the
ecological balance, since the negative impact of human activities on the waters of
the river may affect other components of the ecosystem of the watercourse such as its
flora, fauna, and soil.”
16 Schwebel 3rd Report, at p. 123, para. 247. Schwebel argued, in para. 246 that the normative
principle of environmental protection in international water law is “born of sharpened
awareness of the vast ramifications consequence upon man’s tampering with the
intricate relationships among the elements and agents of nature”. The universality of
the duty to protect the environment, conceded by the members of ILC where no objection
is placed against the adoption of the Article. See 1994 Draft Articles and Commentaries,
at pp. 120–121, para. 8.
17 The terms ‘protect’ and ‘preserve’ were qualified and explained in the 1994 Draft Articles
and Commentaries, at para. 3, p. 119. Attila Tanzi and Maurizio Arcari, The United Nations
Convention on the Law of International Watercourses. A Framework for Sharing (Kluwer
Law International, London, The Hague, Boston, 2001) at p. 245. Schwebel 3rd Report, at
p. 190, para. 517.
18 1994 Draft Articles and Commentaries, at p. 119, paras. 3 and 4.
19 Pulp Mills case, at p. 74, para. 262.
6 introduction

The adjudication of the compliance of Uruguay with its obligations under

Articles 35, 36, and 41 for the preservation of the ecological balance of River
Uruguay contributes towards the development of the normative content of the
obligation to preserve aquatic ecosystems,20 and strengthens the normativity
of this obligation.21
Article 20 reaffirmed the position of the international community to pre-
serve the natural state of the environment against degradation as part of the
effort to protect the ecosystem integrity of international watercourses in accor-
dance with the ecosystem approach.22 It is artfully crafted to articulate the
individual responsibility of states to protect and preserve the environment of
international watercourses within their national boundaries, and to cooperate
with other states sharing the same international watercourses whenever nec-
essary, regardless of whether harm is occasioned.23 Interestingly, the recogni-

20 Pulp Mills case, at p. 74, para. 262. The Court explicitly stated that—
“as part of their obligation to preserve the aquatic environment, the Parties have a
duty to protect the fauna and flora of the river. The rules and measures which they
have to adopt under Art. 41 should also reflect their international undertakings in
respect of biodiversity and habitat protection, in addition to the other standards on
water quality and discharges of effluent.”
21 1994 Draft Articles, at p. 121, para. 8. Schwebel 3rd Report, at p. 122, para. 247; p. 136, para.
285; and p. 190, para. 518.
22 For more, see Charles Odidi Okidi, “‘Preservation and Protection’ Under the 1991 ILC
Draft Articles on the Law of International Watercourses” (1992) 3 Colorado Journal
International Environmental Law and Policy 143–174; Iris M. Korhonen, “Riverine
Ecosystems in International Law” (1996) 36 Natural Resources Journal 481–519; Jutta
Brunnée, and Stephen J. Toope, “Environmental Security and Freshwater Resources: A
Case for International Ecosystem Law”; Stephen C. McCaffrey, The Law of International
Watercourses (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007) at pp. 381–396; Joseph
W. Dellapenna, “Foreword: Bringing the Customary International Law of Transboundary
Waters into the Era of Ecology” (2001) 1 International Journal of Global Environmental
Issues 243–249; Tanzi and Arcari, The United Nations Convention on the Law of
International Watercourses. A Framework for Sharing; Owen McIntyre, “The Emergence
of an ‘Ecosystem Approach’ to the Protection of International Watercourses under
International Law” (2004) 13 Review of European Community and International
Environmental Law 1–14; Alistair S. Rieu-Clarke, Patricia Wouters, and Flavia Loures, “The
Role and Relevance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of
International Watercourses to the EU and Its Member States” (UNESCO Centre for Water
Law, Policy and Science, undated) <http://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/bibliography/
WWF/RA_European_Union.pdf> accessed 19 March 2014.
23 Art. 20 imposes firstly that “watercourse States shall, individually, protect and preserve
the ecosystems of international watercourses” (author’s emphasis). Only then, and
where appropriate shall these watercourse states ‘jointly protect and preserve’ these
introduction 7

tion of an ecosystemic perspective is explicit in the use of the term ‘ecosystem’,

where precise science indicates an expansive interpretation that encompasses
the dynamic linkages between aquatic, terrestrial, marine, atmospheric, and
other ecosystems in the determination of the legal obligation to protect
and preserve the integrity of freshwater ecosystems.24
Apart from the multiplication of international water-specific instruments on
the obligation to protect the environment, the obligation to protect fresh water
ecosystems, or international watercourses environment, is a major concern of
other non-water specific Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) such
as the Biodiversity Convention25 and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.26
The proliferation of international instruments on the environment and its

ecosystems. The recent Earth Summit 2012 recognised the key role of ecosystems in
the maintenance of water quantity and quality, and fully supported the actions of
states within their respective national boundaries in the protection and management
of these ecosystems. UN, “The Future We Want” (Rio+20 United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20 -22 June 2012) (19 June 2012, reissued
22 June 2012) UN Doc A/CONF/206/L.1, at para. 122 <http://www.stakeholderforum.org/
fileadmin/files/FWWEnglish.pdf> accessed 21 July 2012 (hereinafter: ‘The Future We
Want’). Schwebel 3rd Report, at p. 136, para. 285. See Stephen C. McCaffrey, “The Law
of International Watercourses: Some Recent Development and Unanswered Questions”
(1989) 17 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 505, at p. 514. The author opined
that environmental protection and preservation goes further than the ‘no appreciable
harm’ rule even when no transboundary harm is caused by pollution to other States.
24 The term ‘environment’ was removed and replaced with ‘ecosystems’ due to the concern of
members of the ILC on the possible incorporation of terrestrial area. The term ‘ecosystem’
was adopted as it was believed to have a ‘more precise scientific and legal meaning’ than
the ‘environment’. 1994 Draft Articles and Commentaries, at p. 118. Schwebel 3rd Report,
at p. 136, para. 286. ILC “Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of
Its Thirty-fifth Session, 3 May–22 July 1983” (Thirty-eighth Session, GAOR, Supplement
No 10) UN Doc A/38/10 [1983] II(2) Yearbook of International Law Commission 1–91, at
para. 256. Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Fresh Water in International Law (Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2013) at p. 29; 1994 Draft Articles and Commentaries, at
p. 118 para. 2; Korhonen, “Riverine Ecosystems in International Law”, at p. 482; McCaffrey,
The Law of International Watercourses, at p. 459. Tanzi and Arcari, The United Nations
Convention on the Law of International Watercourses: A Framework for Sharing, at pp. 240–
241; Louis B. Sohn, “Commentary. Articles 20–25 and 29” (1992) 3 Colorado Journal of
International Environmental Law and Policy 215–223.
25 Convention on Biological Diversity (entered into force 29 December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79;
(1992) 31 ILM 818 (hereinafter: ‘Biodiversity Convention’).
26 Convention on Wetlands of International importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
(entered into force 21 December 1975) 996 UNTS 245; TIAS 11084; (1972) 11 ILM 963
(hereinafter: ‘Ramsar Convention’).
8 introduction

protection has given rise to a situation known as a multitude of parallels. These

international instruments exist in parallel to each other “without the benefit of
consideration being given to potential conflicts with other agreements either
during their negotiation or at a later stage of their existence”.27
The approach taken by the ICJ in the Pulp Mills case endorsed the need to
adopt an integrated approach in the interpretation of the obligation stipulated
under the 1975 River Uruguay Statute in ensuring the ecosystem integrity of
the River Uruguay régime. The Court enunciated the need to interpret the 1975
River Uruguay Statute in accordance with Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969 Vienna
Convention, where measures adopted under Article 41 should “reflect their
international undertakings in respect of biodiversity and habitat protection”.28
An ecosystemic perspective of the environment strengthens an integrated
approach to the protection of the environment, where ecological balance of
water resources should incorporate international undertakings in other treaty
regimes that address other components of the environment. Hence, the deci-
sion of the ICJ declining reference to rules contained in multilateral conven-
tions on jurisdictional grounds,29 despite conceding that measures adopted
under Article 41 of the River Uruguay Statute should reflect other international
obligations assumed by states, raises one facet of problems arising from the
fragmentation of international law.
Complications created by the proliferation of MEAs that address different
components of the environment are becoming more pronounced as environ-
mental and earth sciences become more advanced in proving the dynamics
existing within ecosystems.30 These international instruments exist as parallels
where states have simultaneous commitments to all of the instruments. Thus,

27 Rüdiger Wolfrum and Nele Matz, Conflicts in International Environmental Law (Springer-
Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2003) at p. 2. The authors, at pp. 2–3 commented
that—
“The phenomenon of a multitude of parallel, substantially or partially overlapping and
colliding agreements in international environmental law, exacerbated by the practice
of negotiating ever more binding instruments, has been labelled ‘treaty congestion’.”
28 Pulp Mills case, at p. 74, para. 262.
29 Pulp Mills case, at p. 30, para. 66. The Court concluded that the rules of general
international law or contained in multilateral conventions to which the two States are
parties, nevertheless has no bearing on the scope of the jurisdiction conferred on the
Court under Art. 60 of the 1975 Statute, which remains confined to disputes concerning
the interpretation or application of the Statute.
30 At least six major related agreements are identified, see Douglas E. Fisher, “Freshwater,
Habitats, and Ecosystems”, pp. 227–242, in Shawkat Alam and others (eds), Routledge
Handbook of International Environmental Law (Routledge, 2013) at p. 234. For other non-
introduction 9

in the interpretation of the obligation to preserve ecosystems of international

watercourses defined in Article 20 of the 1997 Watercourses Convention, it is
important to ensure coherence and consistency in its interpretation in accor-
dance with the principle of systemic integration.31 Rieu-Clarke has suggested,
“When conducting basin level analyses, the impact of non-water specific trea-
ties at various levels on basin practice . . . should be noted”.32
In this regard, it is important to understand the phenomenon known as
fragmentation of international law and the problems arising from such frag-
mentation in the study of the normative scope and content of the obligation
to preserve ecosystems of international watercourses. An interpretation of the
obligation to preserve under Article 20 of the 1997 Watercourses Convention
would require an identification of relevant rules of international law, and an
ascertainment of how, and to what extent, these rules are incorporated in the
interpretation of the obligation. An integrated approach in the interpretation
of a rule of international law against its normative environment reflects con-
current international undertakings committed by state parties on matters rel-
evant to the preservation of ecosystems, which strengthens the normativity of
the rule of international law.

2 Scope and Structure

The customary status of the obligation not to cause transboundary harm

was sufficiently established after the Trail Smelter case and made explicit in
Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration. States have the responsibility to “ensure
activities within their jurisdiction do not cause damage to the environment
of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.33 With

international watercourses instruments see 1994 Draft Articles and Commentaries, at

p. 119, para. 9.
31 Fragmentation Report, at p. 137, para. 271. The ILC stated that “relevant instruments
should always be read as compatible with each other (i.e. the principle of systemic
integration) within an overall obligation to cooperate”.
32 Alistair Rieu-Clarke, “The Role of Treaties in Building International Watercourse Regimes:
A Legal Perspective on Existing Knowledge” (2010) 12 Water Policy 822–831, at p. 829. The
author suggested that existing knowledge and understanding from various perspectives
provide useful insights into the role of treaties in managing conflict and enhance
cooperation over international watercourses.
33 Trail Smelter Case (United States, Canada) (Award of 16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941)
(1941) III Reports of International Arbitral Awards 1905–1982 <http://legal.un.org/riaa/
cases/vol_III/1905-1982.pdf> accessed 19 March 2014.
10 introduction

increased knowledge of the interconnectedness of the environment, and the

need to take a holistic approach in the conservation and protection of the envi-
ronment, environmental agreements directed towards this effort must strive to
conserve the environment as a whole.34 A narrow focus on protection,35 aim-
ing to address pollution control or threatened species, is no longer the only
possible means of addressing environmental problems. Such insight has been
evident in the purposeful insertion of the obligation to preserve,36 and the
adoption of the ‘system approach’ or the ‘ecosystem approach’ in recent inter-
national environmental agreements that emphasise the importance of eco­
system integrity.37

34 Environmental damage has been defined as ‘harm to nature’ in Schwebel 3rd Report,
at para. 247, p. 123. However, in most cases, the connectivity between the terrestrial
ecosystem and the aquatic ecosystem is neglected. See 1994 Draft Articles and
Commentaries, for the commentary on Art. 20. See also McCaffrey, The Law of International
Watercourses for a range of international water instrument that specify the protection of
‘aquatic ecosystem’. See also Agenda 21, at para. 18.38. It stipulated for the maintenance
of ecosystem integrity in accordance with the management principle of preserving
aquatic ecosystems, and protecting them from any form of degradation on a drainage
basin.
35 Schwebel 3rd Report, at para. 247. The term ‘protection’ in the 1997 UN Watercourses
Convention was contextualised to reflect the specific application of the requirement in
Art. 5 that watercourse States are to use and develop an international watercourse in a
manner that is consistent with adequate protection. This requires watercourse States to
shield the ecosystems of international watercourse from harm or damage, including the
duty to protect ecosystems from a significant threat of harm. See 1994 Draft Articles and
Commentaries, at p. 97, paras. 3 and 4; and p. 119, para. 3.
36 The distinction between ‘protection’ and ‘preservation’ is explained in the 1994 Draft
Articles and Commentaries, at p. 119, para. 3. The term ‘preservation’ is defined to
address the particular circumstance of transboundary freshwater ecosystems ‘that are in
a pristine or unspoiled condition’, which requires a protection approach that “maintain
their condition as much as possible in their natural state”. Not all environmental problems
could be subsumed under the rubric of pollution. The treatment of environmental
problems should encompass all relationships between man and the earth’s ecosystem. See
Schwebel 3rd Report, at paras. 244 and 247. See Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters
of International Rivers (adopted by the ILA at the Fifty-Second Conference, August 1966),
Ch. 3. For a detailed account on the development of international environmental law on
the prevention against pollution, see Edith Brown-Weiss, “International Environmental
Law: Contemporary Issues and the Emergence of a New World Order” (1993) 81
Georgetown Law Journal, 675–710.
37 Examples include the ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (adopted at Kuala Lumpur on 9 July 1985); the Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, “The Ecosystem Approach (CBD Guidelines)” (Secretariat of
introduction 11

The obligation to preserve is a widely accepted practice of states.38 Although

the obligations to protect and to preserve are intrinsically linked conceptu-
ally, there is still a fine difference that warrants separate research into the
obligation to preserve. Explicit recognition of the importance of the obliga-
tion to preserve resurfaced in the light of rising concerns on ecosystem deg-
radation in the advent of an ecosystem approach. This approach highlights
the importance of safeguarding and maintaining the structure and function-
ing of ecosystems to ensure ecosystem integrity.39 A focussed interpretation
of the obligation to preserve does not purport to negate the nuanced relation-
ship between protection and preservation, nor does it attempt to nullify the
importance of protection. Instead, it seeks to complement the current body
of knowledge on the obligation to protect, phrased mostly in pollution control
and prevention terms, by exploring the less-researched aspect of preservation
as a means of protection. An interpretation of the obligation to preserve will
contribute towards the emergence of a universal duty to protect the environ-
ment in the broader sense.
This book centres on Article 20’s obligation to preserve freshwater ecosys-
tems of international watercourses in their natural state to the exclusion of
other protection measures that address prevention of harm, including mea-
sures relating to security, water-related disease, measures relating to the tech-
nical and hydrological control of watercourses, and other measures on the
protection of watercourses.40 The increased recognition of the preservation

the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 2004); and also the 1992 Helsinki
Convention.
38 Schwebel 3rd Report, at p. 190, para. 518.
39 Jutta Brunnée and Stephen Toope, “Environmental Security and Freshwater Resources:
A Case for International Ecosystem Law”; J. Fischer, D. Lindenmayer, and A. Manning,
“Biodiversity, Ecosystem Function, and Resilience: Ten Guiding Principles for Commodity
Production Landscapes” (2006) 4(2) Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 80–86.
InterAction Council, “Ecology and the Global Economy”, at para. 9. The InterAction
Council highlighted the importance of the need to preserve natural resources in
the broad context (and not just the preservation of freshwater ecosystems) where the
Council enunciated that “people’s participation in the management and preservation of a
country’s resources will be decisive for the sustainability of development efforts”.
40 1994 Draft Articles and Commentaries, at p. 97, para. 4. The ‘control’ measures in the
technical, hydrological sense are those taken to regulate flow, to control floods, pollution,
and erosion, to mitigate drought, and to control saline intrusion. Other measures do
not exclude cooperative measures, works, or activities undertaken by States jointly. On
the issue of prevention of harm, including harm caused by pollution, the general duty
of prevention against significant transboundary harm under customary international
law, the duty is endorsed in Art. 7 of the 1997 Watercourses Convention, Principle 2 of
12 introduction

of ecosystems,41 under the broader context of the maintenance of ecosystems

integrity, necessitates a systemic integration of rules provided by the plethora
of MEAs that stipulated the establishment of protected areas for the preserva-
tion and conservation of ecosystems, habitats, and the natural surroundings of
viable population of species.
The book excludes taking into account other water-specific international
instruments at the regional and basin level, as these instruments are within
the regime of international water law, where the legal maxim of lex specialis
derogat lege generali, could be applied.42 The lex specialis maxim provides that
“priority falls on the provision which is ‘special’” where the more specific rule

the Rio Declaration, and the 2001 Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm
from Hazardous Activities. ILC, “Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary
Harm from Hazardous Activities” (Report of ILC on the Work of its Fifty-third Session,
UNGAOR, Supp (No. 10)) UN Doc A/56/10 <http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/
english/draft%20articles/9_7_2001.pdf> accessed 19 March 2014.
41 Bruce Pardy, “Changing Nature: The Myth of the Inevitability of Ecosystem Management”
(2003) 20 Pace Environmental Law Review 675–692, at p. 676. Pardy commented,
“there are many reasons to desire a natural state in ecosystems”. Some reasons are
philosophical—
“‘deep ecologists’, for example contend that a state of nature is inherently more valu-
able than one designed by humans. Some are pragmatic: there are risks that ecosys-
tems changed by human action will not function as well as systems in a natural state.”
Leopold stressed that “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and
beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise”. See Aldo Leopold,
A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There (Oxford University Press, 1949) at
“The Outlook” (p. 2).
42 The structurisation of the international water regime is the culmination of water-specific
international instruments at basins and regional level. The UNECE Task Force on Legal
and Administrative Aspects stated that “there is no denying that, basically, the two
Conventions bear on the same subject-matter”. See Tanzi, “The Relationship between the
1992 UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and
International Lakes and the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non Navigational
Uses of International Watercourses”, at p. 53. Fragmentation Report, at p. 34, para. 56. As
stated in p. 36, para. 58, a relationship of specific vs general law would be provided by a
relationship between a territorially limited general regime and a universal treaty on some
specific subject; and at p. 35, para. 56, “the specific rule should be read and understood
within the confines or against the background of the general standard”. At p. 35, para.
57, the Fragmentation Report explained that the lex specialis maxim does not operate
as a conflict-solution technique in a situation where two legal provisions that “provide
incompatible direction on how to deal with the same sets of facts” are both valid and
applicable, and are in “no express hierarchical relationship”.
introduction 13

should take precedence over a general standard.43 An application of the lex

specialis maxim is supported in the report prepared by the UNECE Task Force
on Legal and Administrative Aspects where it is expressed that—

as a matter of policy, it is only natural that the law-making process at the

universal level yields to lower common denominators than in the less
heterogeneous context of the ECE.44

43 Fragmentation Report, at p. 35, para. 56. A specific rule, is explained in p. 35, para. 57,
as “the rule with a more precisely delimited scope of application”. The ILC elaborated, at
pp. 36–37, para. 60 that—
“A special rule is more to the point (‘approaches most nearly to the subject in hand’)
than a general one and it regulates the matter more effectively (‘are ordinarily more
effective’) than general rules . . . [S]pecial rules are better able to take account of par-
ticular circumstances. The need to comply with them is felt more acutely than is the
case with general rules. They have greater clarity and definiteness and are thus often
felt ‘harder’ or more ‘binding’ than general rules which may stay in the background
and be applied only rarely. Moreover, lex specialis may also seem useful as it may pro-
vide better access to what the parties may have willed.”
In the context of the 1992 Helsinki Convention as the lex specialis at the regional level,
Tanzi had eloquently stated, at p. 53 that—
“It also appears that, where there is no coincidence between the contents of the rules
of the two Conventions on the same issue, those of the ECE 92 Convention are gener-
ally more stringent than those of the UN 97 Convention. This applies to their material
and, even more so, to their procedural rules. As to the substantive rules, the ECE 92
Convention sets out more precise guidelines and advanced standards of conduct for
the prevention of transboundary impact . . . From a substantive point of view, we have
seen that the differences between the two Conventions with regard to specific rules on
the same subject-matter are hardly ever a matter of conflicting prescriptions, but one
of more, or less, stringency or detailed character of such prescriptions.”
Tanzi, “The Relationship between the 1992 UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use
of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes and the 1997 UN Convention on
the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses”.
44 Tanzi, “The Relationship between the 1992 UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use
of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes and the 1997 UN Convention on
the Law of the Non Navigational Uses of International Watercourses”, at p. 37. The lex
specialis nature of the 1992 Helsinki Convention is acknowledged when the UNECE Task
Force on Legal and Administrative Aspects report concluded that—
“the lex posterior derogat priori rule cannot operate invalidating the ECE 92
Convention, due to subsequent ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the
UN 97 Convention . . . [in light of the ‘crystal clear language of art. 3, para. 1 of the UN
97 Convention’].”
14 introduction

The lex specialis maxim is applied, albeit indirectly, by the ICJ in the Navi­
gational and Related Rights case where the Court determined that the 1858
Treaty of Limits “completely defines the rules applicable to the section of the
San Juan River that is in dispute in respect of navigation”.45 The Court elabo-
rated that even if the San Juan River is categorised as an ‘international river’,
rules of customary international law do not become operative because the
1858 Treaty of Limits had the effect of excluding customary international law
as it is “intended to define completely the régime applicable to navigation, by
the riparian States”, and that it is “sufficient to settle the question of the extent
of Costa Rica’s right of free navigation” on the San Juan River.46
The aim of this book is to study the issue of fragmentation of international
law through the prism of interpretation accorded under Article 31(3)(c) of the
1969 Vienna Convention. The interplay of norms between the lex specialis of
the 1992 Helsinki Convention and the 1997 Watercourses Convention, which
codifies the lex generalis of the international water law regime, is an example
of a situation in which the lex specialis rule applies in the legal regime regulat-
ing fresh water uses. As such, the multiplicity of international instruments that
are relevant to the obligation to preserve ecosystems of international water-
courses goes towards the structurisation of the obligation, and strengthens
the normativity of the obligation in international water law where problems
associated with the fragmentation of international law do not arise. Thus,
water-specific international instruments are not referred to in the interpre-
tation of Article 20 of the 1997 Watercourses Convention, as Article 20 will

The ascertainment of the general vs special relationship could be clearly observed in

Art. 3 of the 1997 Watercourses Convention where deference is given to prior agreements
in force for a watercourse state, even though Art. 3(2) invokes the consideration for the
harmonisation of agreements in Art. 3(1) where necessary with the basic principles
of the 1997 Watercourses Convention. Art. 3(3) supports the general nature of the
1997 Watercourses Convention where watercourse states are permitted to enter into
agreements that apply and adjust the provisions of the 1997 Watercourses Convention to
fit the characteristics and uses of a particular international watercourse.
45 Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) (Judgment,
13 July 2009) [2009] ICJ Reports 213, at p. 233, para. 36 <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/
files/133/15321.pdf> accessed 19 March 2014 (hereinafter: ‘Navigational and Related
Rights’).
46 Interestingly, at p. 233, para. 34, it is noted in the Navigational and Related Rights case
that the ICJ did not consider itself necessary to—
“settle the question of whether the San Juan falls into the category of ‘inter-
national rivers’, as Costa Rica maintains, or is a national river which includes an
international element, that being the argument of Nicaragua.”
introduction 15

yield to a more specialised legal instrument where the lex specialis rule applies.
However, the exclusion of water-specific instruments from the scope of this
book, does not in any way, undermine the usefulness of these instruments in
informing state practice in the execution of the obligation to preserve ecosys-
tems of international watercourses. The normative content expressed in these
instruments forms part of the corpus of knowledge embodied in Article 20 of
the 1997 Watercourses Convention.
This book aims to assist water and legal practitioners in their administra-
tive and adjudicative capacities in resolving difficulties arising from the con-
gestion of treaties by engaging the legal technique of interpretation,47 and
to operationalise Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention as an inte-
gration tool for the management of this problem. The principle of systemic
integration forms the basis of an interpretative approach towards the har-
monisation of rules of international law,48 which is deemed to be expressed
in Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention.49 Article 31(3)(c) provides
that—

31(3) There shall be taken into account, together with the context—

(c) Any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations

between the parties

This book proposes a reconstruction of existing interpretations of the salient

features of Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention in order to ascer-
tain the normative scope and the normative content of the obligation to pre-
serve ecosystems of international watercourses under Article 20 of the 1997

47 See Anthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press,
2007) at p. 230. Aust enunciated that—
“just as construing legislation is the constant concern of the domestic practitioner,
treaty interpretation forms a significant part of the day-to-day work of a foreign min-
istry legal adviser.”
48 Fragmentation Report, at p. 207, para. 411—
“[In order not to render a treaty duly adopted or a custom followed by States to become
in some respect altogether without legal effect], this has been achieved in particularly
through two techniques. First is the effort to harmonise the apparently conflicting
norms by interpreting them so as to render them compatible. Second is the technique
whereby the question of validity has been replaced by a question of priority. The norm
that will be set aside will remain as it were ‘in the background’, continuing to influence
the interpretation and application of the norm to which priority has been given.”
49 McLachlan, “The Principle of Systemic Integration” (2005) 54 International and
Comparative Law Quarterly 279–230, at p. 318.
16 introduction

Watercourses Convention. Firstly, aspects considered relevant for the preser-

vation of ecosystems of international watercourses are reinterpreted through
the prism of an ecosystem approach. The inclusion of the term ‘any’ instead
of ‘all’ relevant rules indicates some measure of discretion exercisable by the
interpreter, which should be context-oriented, and dependent on the situation
to be addressed.
Next, ‘rules of international law applicable in the relations between the par-
ties’ are reappraised in the light of an interactional understanding of interna-
tional law for the identification of the implicit dimension that supports the
explicit dimension of a rule. The extent to which ‘rules of international law
applicable in the relations between the parties’, identified and ascertained in
the first two stages, are incorporated in the interpretation of the obligation
to preserve ecosystems of international watercourses, delimitates the integra-
tion potential of Article 31(3)(c). It is also indicative of the extent to which the
principle of systemic integration could be applied, in consideration of the dis-
tinctive differences in each self-contained regime, through the legal technique
of interpretation.
The emphasis of this book is on the operationalisation of Article 31(3)(c)
for the systemic integration of rules relevant to the obligation to preserve
ecosystems of international watercourses through the prism of interpreta-
tion. Chapter 1 examines the problématique arising from the fragmentation
of international law, which forms the context of the book, and introduces the
central proposition to develop the potential of Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969
Vienna Convention as a tool that integrates the corpus of international law rel-
evant to the obligation to preserve ecosystems of international watercourses.
The chapter analyses existing interpretations of Article 31(3)(c), from which
a proposal for a reconstruction that operationalises its systemic integration
potential is offered. The application of the framework of operationalisation
that deploys the tiered reconstructed interpretation of Article 31(3)(c) is dem-
onstrated in subsequent chapters of the book.
Chapter 2 illuminates the emergence of the ecosystem approach in inter-
national law and policy, and sets out the criteria for the identification of rules
of international law that are ‘relevant’ for the interpretation of the obligation
to preserve ecosystems of international watercourses. The emergence of the
ecosystem approach frames the protection of the environment in ecosystem
language, where the goal of protection is to maintain the integrity of an ecosys-
tem that enables the continuous provision of ecosystem services.
Chapter 3 discusses the most controversial aspect of the interpretation of
Article 31(3)(c). Heated debate on the limitation of the potential of Article
31(3)(c) as an integration tool expressing the principle of systemic integration
introduction 17

centres on the interpretation of the phrase ‘applicable in the relations between

the parties’. The chapter lays out existing debates and discussions on the proper
interpretation of that phrase, and concludes that the effective operationalisa-
tion of Article 31(3)(c) cannot be attained if the existing construction of the
salient phrase of the Article is maintained.
In response to existing scepticisms regarding the systemic integration poten-
tial of Article 31(3)(c), Chapter 4 proposes an interpretation of ‘rules of inter-
national law applicable in the relations between the parties’ that is informed
and guided by an interactional theory of law. The theory posits that law
emerges when shared understandings become fused with a ‘practice of legality’
through a continuous process of mutual engagement and robust interaction,
rooted in Lon Fuller’s eight criteria of legality and embraced by a commu-
nity of legal practice that adheres to these criteria in day-to-day decision-
making. Chapter 4 concludes that the phrase ‘applicable in the relations
between the parties’ should be interpreted in relation to the ‘rules of interna-
tional law’. The applicability of the rules of international law in the relations
between the parties is dependent on the shared legal understanding achieved
by the parties in the process of the making of that rule of international law. This
approach diverges from existing interpretations of this Article where scholars
define ‘relevant’, ‘rules of international law’, ‘applicable’ and ‘the parties’ sepa-
rately. It reassesses existing interpretations that the applicability of the rules
of international law is contingent on the rules being formally binding on the
parties by pointing out that, this reading of ‘applicable’ is not supported by
the interpretation of ‘the parties’, or by the context of the 1969 Vienna
Convention, or by jurisprudence. The conceptual framework developed for
the interpretation of ‘rules of international law applicable in the relations
between the parties’ through an interactional understanding of law will be
illustrated in the subsequent two chapters.
Chapters 5 and 6 apply the framework developed in Chapter 4, in the case
studies of the Ramsar Convention and the Biodiversity Convention respec-
tively. Firstly, the substantive content and the applicability of the relevant
rules of international law identified in Chapter 2 are ascertained through the
prism of an interactional understanding of law. Secondly, these chapters opera-
tionalise the interactional framework of the conceptualisation of international
law whereby the shared understanding undertaken in a practice of legality by
the parties of both Conventions is assessed against the criteria of legality.
Chapter 7 explores the extent to which rules of international law relevant
to the interpretation of the obligation to preserve ecosystems of international
watercourses shall be taken into account. This chapter proposes a structure for
the systemic integration of relevant rules of international law constructed in
18 introduction

reference to the approach undertaken in international courts and tribunals. It

provides an abridged compendium of empirical research of existing jurispru-
dence, in the illustration of the normative weight to be given to the external
rules in the interpretation of a treaty term or provision, in order to identify the
extent and scope of ‘shall be taken into account’.
Central to Chapter 8 is the operationalisation of the analytical framework
developed in the interpretation of the obligation to preserve ecosystems of
international watercourses, and in light of its systemic environment offered
by the Ramsar and the Biodiversity Conventions. In particular, it demonstrates
how ‘shall take into account, together with the context’ could be interpreted
and applied for the incorporation of external rules provided by the Ramsar
Convention and the Biodiversity Convention in the interpretation of the obli-
gation to preserve.
Chapter 9 provides a general conclusion and reflection of the analytical
framework developed for the interpretation of the obligation to preserve eco-
systems of international watercourses in the systemic environment provided
by the relevant rules of international law in the form of Ramsar Convention
and Biodiversity Convention. It concludes how Article 31(3)(c) of the 1969
Vienna Convention could be operationalised for the systemic integration of the
obligation to preserve under Art. 20 through the legal technique of interpre-
tation. This book complements existing initiatives to enhance synergies and
promote coordination in the governance of the environment, and reinforces
the interlinkages struck between MEAs, with the hope of extending the efforts
undertaken to promote procedural interlinkages between treaty regimes to
encompass substantive integration of rules of international law through the
technique of interpretation.
 chapter 1

The Fragmentation of International Law and

Its Integration: Interpretation and Article 31(3)(c)
of the 1969 Vienna Convention

Law is the product of many acts of law-making processes taken over long
stretches of time, contributed to by various entities pursuing divergent, even
conflicting ends who are possibly partially aware of each other, and “far from
displaying coherent design”.1 In the international legal order, the rise of new
and special types of law brings forth the emergence of treaty systems that
are geographically limited or functionally differentiated.2 These specialised
regimes, known in the discourse on fragmentation of international law as ‘self-
contained regimes’, contributed towards the development of distinctive bodies
of law armed with their own respective principles and institutions peculiar to
that particular regime.3 An extensive expansion of spheres of social action and
structure that are “specialised and relatively autonomous”,4 mandated with
different problem-solving orientation in an uncoordinated fashion, leads to
the fragmentation of international law. Treaty regimes that flourish by virtue
of an evident increase in legal activities conducted by these “spheres of social
action and structure” create situation of normative and legal pluralism where

1 Joseph Raz, Between Authority and Interpretation. On the Theory of Law and Practical Reason
(Oxford University Press, 2009) at p. 5. The law, taken as a whole, consists of legal rules,
which are obtained through law-making activities, including legislation, and the rendering
of judgments that are considered as supplementary sources of international law.
2 Fragmentation Report, at para. 204.
3 Fragmentation Report, at p. 22, para. 31. See Alexander Orakhelashvili, “The Interaction
between Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Fragmentation, Conflict, Parallelism,
or Convergence?” (2008) 19(1) European Journal of International Law 161–182, at p. 162.
Fragmentation Report, at p. 11, para. 8. See also UNGA, “Report of the International Law
Commission of Its Fifty-fourth Session” (29 April–7 June and 22 July–16 August 2002), UN
GAOR 57th Session Supp No 10 UN Doc A/57/10, at paras. 492–494. UNGA, “Fragmentation
of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of
International Law” (Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fifty-
Eighth Session, Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006) A/CN.4/L.702 (18 July
2006) (hereafter: ‘Report of ILC’) at p. 1, para. 1.
4 Report of ILC, at para. 5.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004268395_�03

20 chapter 1

competing multi-sourced equivalent norms regulate the same situation or

fact,5 presents one facet of legal fragmentation.6
Although the fragmented state of international law, leading to increased
normative density and intensity in international relations, is part of the pro-
cess of globalisation,7 it embeds a latent risk. There is a danger in the cre-
ation of conflicting rule-systems and institutional practices that gives rise to
incompatible rules and principles,8 regardless of the positive implications
in the pluralisation of law-making and the expansion of international law.9
Such a development entails several theoretical and practical challenges in
law and legal policy, and leads to more problems than solutions.10 It is capable

5 Brian Z. Tamanaha, “Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global”

(2008) 30 Sydney Law Review 375–411. Tamanaha observed, at p. 387 that inter-
national legal pluralism, in the light of evident signs of “a diminishment of the state’s
traditional legal functions” is identified or described due to the ‘internally-pluralistic’
nature of the international legal system—
“with a sprawling multitude of separate tribunals . . . and functionally distinct bodies
of legal norms tied to specific areas of regulation . . . that are not coordinated with one
another and can overlap or conflict.”
6 Miguel Poiares Maduro, “Foreword”, in Tomer Broude and Yuval Shany, Multi-Sourced
Equivalent Norms in International Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon,
2011), at p. vii. The author further stated that the multiplication of legal regimes and
adjudication fora, and conflicting jurisdictions among different legal orders that generate
interpretative competition and adjudication giving rise to possible externalities, are
constructed as being the origin of fragmentation in international law.
7 Yuval Shany, “The First MOX Plant Award: The Need to Harmonize Competing
Environmental Regimes and Dispute Settlement Procedures” (2004) 17 Leiden Journal of
International Law 815–827, at p. 823; Yuval Shany and Tomer Broude, “The International
Law and Policy of Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms” pp. 1–15 in Shany and Broude
(eds) Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms in International Law, at p. 3; and Joost Pauwelyn,
Conflict of Norms in Public International Law (Cambridge Studies in International and
Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) at pp. 19–20.
8 Report of ILC, at p. 5, para. 9.
9 José E. Alvarez, “The New Treaty Makers” (Keynote Address in a Symposium at Boston
College law School, given in honour of Professor Cynthia Lichtenstein, 2 November 2001)
<http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/25_2/03_FMS
.htm> accessed 24 August 2012. The author noted that the pluralisation and expansion of
international law-making has positive implications in light of the “ever-rising movements
of people, goods, and capital across borders” and to regulate the “positive and negative
externalities, [especially the threat to the global commons], that arises from such a flow”.
10 Shany and Broude (ed) Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms in International Law, at pp. 3–4.
See also Shany, “The First MOX Plant Award”, at p. 823.
the fragmentation of international law and its integration 21

of undermining the coherence and uniformity of international law,11 and thus

justifies the need to provide a framework “through which the fragmentation
may be assessed and managed in a legal professional way”.12
Various international legal scholars have dealt at length more generally on
the normative interactions, or regime-collisions caused by the fragmentation
of international law. Most of these scholars undertook an extensive overview of
all possible methods and mechanisms for the management of fragmentation.13
The ILC compiled and studied an extensive range of scholarship on the issue
of fragmentation, summarised the existing body of knowledge on this press-
ing issue, and explored the legal means and methods in tackling this phenom-
enon inevitably caused by the diversification and expansion of international
law.14 The focus of these international scholars in the normative fragmentation

11 Report of ILC, at p. 5. At p. 3, ILC recognised that the expansion in international

legal regulation has been accompanied by the emergence of specialised rules, legal
institutions, and (semi)-autonomous field of operations, inter alia, ‘environmental law’,
‘law of the sea’, (and probably, international law on shared watercourses). Further at
p. 4, ILC acknowledged at the outset that fragmentation does raise both institutional and
substantive problems. See also Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law;
Interestingly, Young commented, at p. 81 that there is a need for—
“greater analysis of the notion and operation of ‘regimes’ . . . there is much scope for
international lawyers to contribute understanding and ideas about collaboration and
cohesion in rule making within regimes as there is a focus on ex post rules determin-
ing priority in later disputes. . . . an analysis of regime interplay during rule making
may even contribute to a different understanding of conflicting norms and of the way
regimes interact after rules are made.”
Margaret A. Young, “Fragmentation or Interaction: the WTO, Fisheries Subsidies, and
International Law” (2009) 8 World Trade Review 477–515, at p. 481; Jörg Kammerhofer,
“Systemic Integration, Legal Theory and the ILC” (2008) 19 Finnish Yearbook of
International Law 157–182; <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=
1534086> (29 November 2009), at p. 174. The author stated that—
“In taking up the topic of ‘fragmentation of international law’, the ILC has forayed into
the realm of legal theory. The questions to be discussed were the relationship of norms
in a legal system and the cognition of legal norms.”
12 Report of ILC, at p. 6, para. 12.
13 Pauwelyn frames the normative interaction in international law through a conceptual
lens of conflict. Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law.
14 ILC, “Conclusions of the Work of the Study Group on the Fragmentations of International
Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law”
(adopted by ILC at its 59th Session and submitted to the General Assembly as part of
the Commission’s report, 2006) UN Doc A/61/10, para. 251 <http://legal.un.org/ilc/
texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/1_9_2006.pdf> accessed 24 March 2014
(hereinafter: ‘Conclusion on Fragmentation’).
22 chapter 1

scholarship was mostly on the various legal mechanisms that dealt with situ-
ations of conflict or interpretation regarding the substance of the law ex post
the making of laws.15
As opposed to the more ex post approach as a means to address the problem
of fragmentation in international law, the discussion on the management of
the fragmentation of international law on the environment have also adopted
an ex ante approach, which is influenced by the need to increase the effec-
tiveness of environmental governance. Scholars have advocated various meth-
odologies that increase interactions and cooperation between treaty regimes,
which complement the interlinkages initiatives taken at the institutional level
by the treaty bodies.16

15 Young, “Fragmentation or Interaction: The WTO, Fisheries Subsidies, and International

Law”, at p. 481.
16 Elizabeth Kirk proposed the mechanism of “cross-referencing of reports and information
between regimes and organisations and a continued exchange of information between
autopoietic regimes” in order to sustainably manage a sectoral marine regime plagued
by problems created by the expansion of maritime jurisdiction she called ‘creeping
jurisdiction’. Elizabeth Kirk, “Maritime Zones and the Ecosystem Approach: A Mismatch?”
(1999) 8(1) Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 67–72,
at p. 70. Moltke, Whither MEAs? at p. 16 went a step further in recommending for more
structural interactions as compared to the more administrative interchange suggested
by Kirk. He explicated the desirability of the institutional clustering of international
environmental regime to improve effectiveness that strengthens international envi-
ronmental governance, and proposed the strengthening of regime institutions through
organisational change. Proceeding on the same theme on institutional interactions
and linkages, Oberthür elaborated on the potential, problems, and limitation of
MEAs-clustering in the attempt to improve the effectiveness of the environmental
governance regimes, and expanded his research to look at the interactions between
international and European Union policies. See Sebastian Oberthür, “Clustering of
Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Potentials and Limitations” (United Nations
University Institute of Advanced Studies Project on International Environmental
Governance Reform, 2002) <http://archive.unu.edu/inter-linkages/docs/IEG/Oberthur
.pdf> accessed 14 December 2011. Other similar publications by the same author include
Sebastian Oberthür, Thomas Gehring, and Oran R. Young (eds), Institutional Interaction
in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU
Policies (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2006); and Sebastian Oberthür and Olav Schram Stokke
(eds), Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental
Change (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2011). Moltke’s proposal was reiterated in greater
depth and detail 10 years later where Scott proposed the engagement of institutional
cooperation and integration for the management of fragmentation that exploit the
overlaps and synergies existed between multilateral environmental treaties, in Karen
N. Scott, “International Environmental Governance: Managing Fragmentation through
Institutional Connection” (2011) 12 Melbourne Journal of International Law 1–40, at
the fragmentation of international law and its integration 23

Van Asselt, after the evaluation of existing ex ante approaches proposed by

scholars, concluded that autonomous institutional actions are the most fruit-
ful approach aimed at enhancing synergies between the conflicting regimes.17
Institutional reforms are advocated through the diversification of institutional
arrangements based on networks of partnerships between state, public, and
private stakeholders in addressing disconnect between the current system
of environmental governance and the effective application of the ecosystem
approach.18 Such arrangements are deemed more flexible, resilient, and capa-
ble of providing the required multi-functional landscapes for the application
of an ecosystem approach.19
The quest to solve problems posed by the fragmentation of law has raised
a pertinent issue concerning the interpretation and application of rules. The
interpretation and application of rules are central to the resolution of problems
of legal fragmentation regardless whether the problems are resolved through a
traditional school of international law that engages existing legal mechanisms
to deal with the problem; or a more revolutionary approach that promotes the
development of regimes geared towards institutional interactions and coop-
eration. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive because a more inter-
active law-making process will strengthen the common understanding of a
law, thus enabling a more integrative interpretation and application of the law,
which is less prone to conflict.

pp. 14–35. Young introduced a different aspect of regime interactions by advocating for
a participatory approach in the interactions of institutional that can pre-empt further
legal fragmentation. Young, “Fragmentation or Interaction: The WTO, Fisheries Subsidies,
and International Law”, at p. 513. Young furthered her proposal for alternative responses
via regime interaction through a research agenda that focusses on the institutional and
normative interplay of the governance of climate change, in Margaret A. Young, “Climate
Change Law and Regime Interaction” (2011) 2 Carbon and Climate Law Review 147–157.
17 Harro van Asselt, “Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental
Law: Forests at the Intersection of the Climate and Biodiversity Regimes” (2012) 44
International Law and Politics 1205–1278, at pp. 1212, and 1268–1274. Fragmentation
of international law, regime interactions, and climate change governance are recurring
themes of discussion for van Asselt, see Harro van Asselt, Francesco Sindico, and Michael
A. Mehling, “Global Climate Change and the Fragmentation of International Law” (2008)
30(4) Law and Policy 423.
18 Alison R. Holt, Jasmin A. Godbold, Piran C.L. White, Anne-Michelle Slater, Eduardo G.
Pereira, and Martin Solan, “Mismatches between Legislative Frameworks and Benefits
Restrict the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach in Coastal Environments” (2011)
434 Marine Ecology Progress Series 213–228, at p. 215.
19 Alison R. Holt et al., “Mismatches between Legislative Frameworks and Benefits Restrict
the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach in Coastal Environments”, at p. 224.
24 chapter 1

1 Fragmentation of International Law on International Watercourse

Ecosystems

When the intricate connections between freshwater resource and its related
environmental components, and the indivisible unitary nature of the environ-
ment are better understood,20 it is not unusual to witness some degree of poten-
tial and actual normative interactions, overlaps, and even collisions between
different treaty regimes that address multiple environmental problems sepa-
rately. In the absence of an overarching architecture of administration, it is
highly conceivable that potential conflicts, which have the undesirable effects
of contradictions and incompatibility, occur. Moreover, the doubling of efforts
that diminishes the effectiveness of international environmental law would
threaten coherence and consistency in the interpretation and application of
international law.21
The obligation to preserve ecosystems of international watercourses in the
overall context of their protection has also been addressed in non-water specific
international instruments on the environment.22 The Ramsar Convention and
the Biodiversity Convention (as raised in the Pulp Mills case)23 have direct rel-
evance to the obligation to preserve ecosystems of international watercourses
defined under Article 20 of the 1997 Watercourses Convention, whereby
the two Conventions deal specifically with the conservation (which includes

20 Xue Hanqin, “Commentary. Relativity in International Water Law” (1992) 3 Colorado

Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 45–57, at p. 47.
21 Wolfrum and Matz, Conflicts in International Environmental Law, at pp. 3–4; Harro van
Asselt, “Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law: Forests at
the Intersection of the Climate and Biodiversity Regimes” at p. 1208. The International
Environmental Agreements (IEA) Database Project revealed, in the Annual Count of
Agreements in the IEA Database, the numbers of Multilateral Environmental Agreements
from 1950 to 2012 amounts to a total of 1077 treaties. Ronald B. Mitchell, “Annual Count
of Agreements in the IEA Database. Multilateral Environmental Agreements 1950–2012”
(2002–2012) <http://iea.uoregon.edu/page.php?query=summarize_by_year&yearstart=
1950&yearend=2012&inclusion=MEA> accessed 2 November 2012. See Data from Ronald
B. Mitchell, “International Environmental Agreements Database Project (Version 2012.1)”
(2002–2012) <http://iea.uoregon.edu/> accessed 2 November 2012.
22 See McCaffrey, The Law of International Watercourses, at p. 393. Also Birnie, Boyle
and Redgwell, International Law and the Environment, at p. 561; Laurence Boisson de
Chazournes, “Eaux internationals et droit international: vers l’idée de gestion commune”
in Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Salman M.A. Salman, (eds) Water Resources
and International Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005) at p. 41; Korhonen, “Riverine
Ecosystems in International Law”, at p. 489.
23 Pulp Mills case, at p. 43, para. 56.
the fragmentation of international law and its integration 25

the preservation) of freshwater ecosystems. Apart from the two Conventions,

normative interactions and overlaps could be observed in some of the more
familiar MEAs, including the World Heritage Convention (WHC). Under the
WHC, the preservation of freshwater ecosystems could form part of the pro-
tection of natural heritage that includes freshwater, habitats, and ecosystems,
especially when natural heritage is interpreted to include “natural features
consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such forma-
tions”; “geological and physiographical formations”; and “habitat of threatened
species”.24 The inclusion of biotic and abiotic elements in the interpretation
of natural heritage where protection is enforced through a special regime of
designated natural heritage sites impinges on similar subject matter, namely
freshwater ecosystems.
The expansiveness of the concept of ecosystem renders species-centric
conventions such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the Convention on Migratory Species
relevant to the interpretation of freshwater ecosystems preservation where
habitat conservation is recognised in the protection of migratory or endan-
gered species.25 The systemic vision of an ecosystem approach encompasses
problem-oriented convention such as the Convention to Combat Desertifica­
tion, which aims to “combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought
in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification” for sustain-
able use of scarce resource, renders these Conventions relevant to the inter-
pretation of the obligation to preserve ecosystems.26 Moreover, in the light of
the current focus of the international community on the advent of climate
change and the predominant influence of the climate change regime in
international environmental law discourse, the climate change regime would
have great influence in the interpretation of ecosystems preservation.27 The

24 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
(entered into force 17 December 1975) 1037 UNTS 151; 27 United States Treaties and other
International Agreements (UST) 37; (1972) 11 ILM 1358 (hereinafter: ‘WHC’) Arts. 2 and 4.
25 Convention on International trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973
(entered into force 1 July 1975) 27 UST 1087; TIAS 82249; 993 UNTS 243; (1973) 12 ILM
1088 (hereinafter: ‘CITES’), preamble; The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory
Species of Wild Animals 1979 (hereinafter: ‘CMS’), preamble and Art. II.1.
26 Arts. 2.1 and 3(c), Convention to Combat Desertification in Those countries Experiencing
Serious Drought and/or Desertification Particularly in Africa (entered into force
26 December 1996) 1954 UNTS 3; (1994) 33 ILM 1328.
27 The climate change regime consists of two major instruments, namely the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (concluded 9 March 1992, entered into force
29 December 1992) (1992) 31 ILM 822 (hereinafter: ‘UNFCCC’); and the Protocol to the
26 chapter 1

utilitarian focus of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) obliging all Contracting Parties to promote and cooperate in the
conservation of greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs, including, amongst
others, terrestrial ecosystems,28 indicates the potential relevance of the Climate
Change regime in the interpretation of the obligation to preserve under Article
20 of the 1997 Watercourses Convention.
Limited resources and capacity of the international community shadow
any positive implications of a diversification of international law, especially
when the fragmentation of treaty regimes on the environment that exists as
a unitary whole leads to treaty congestion, and adversely affects operational
efficiency.29 At an operational level, the administration of the obligations
committed by parties will be encumbered by the conclusion of a multitude of
treaty regimes. The lack of coordination and cooperation on the issues of envi-
ronment and sustainable development, despite the successful establishment
of a modern international environmental law regime is most pronounced in
the failure of the Rio+5.30

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Doc FCCC/CP/1997/7/

Add.1 (concluded 10 December 1997, entered into force 16 February 2005) (1998) 37 ILM
22.
28 Art. 4(1)(d), UNFCCC; Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (adopted 11 Dec 1997, entered into force 16 Feb 2005) 2303 UNTS 148 <https://
treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%202303/v2303.pdf> accessed 19 March
2014 (Kyoto Protocol).
29 Brown-Weiss, “International Environmental Law: Contemporary Issues and the
Emergence of a New World Order”, at pp. 697–702. Donald K. Anton, ‘“Treaty Congestion”
in Contemporary International Environmental Law’ pp. 651–665, in Shawkat Alam, Md
Jahid Hossain Bhuiyan, Tareq M.R. Chowdhury and Erika J. Techera (eds) Routledge
Handbook of International Environmental Law (Routledge, London and New York, 2013)
at pp. 653–657.
30 W. Bradnee Chambers, Interlinkages and the Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 2008) at pp. 3 and 108. The author
commented, at p. 3 that—
“by 1997, the failure of Rio+5 [which refers to the Fifth Anniversary of the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
1992] showed the ugly side of the lack of cooperation on issues of environment and
sustainable development.”
See also Tim Stephens, “Multiple International Courts and the ‘Fragmentation’ of
International Environmental Law” (Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07/14, Sydney Law
School, The University of Sydney, March 2007); and Konrad von Moltke, Whither MEAs?
The Role of International Environmental Management in the Trade and Environment
Agenda (International Institute for Sustainable Development, Canada, 2001); Harro van
the fragmentation of international law and its integration 27

The failure of the modern international legal regime on the environment

established in 1992 to address environmental problems for the sustainable
development of mankind demonstrates the paramount importance of an inte-
grated, coordinated, and synergised approach in the interpretation and appli-
cation of obligations stipulated under the MEAs. It reaffirms the importance of
international law as a platform of cooperation, especially in the rational man-
agement of international water resources,31 echoing the call of Agenda 21 of
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)

Asselt noted that the phenomenon of treaty congestion in “Managing the Fragmentation
of International Environmental Law: Forests at the Intersection of the Climate and
Biodiversity Regimes”, at pp. 1209–1210. The author reiterated the possible consequences
that could be resulted from the treaty congestion in international environmental law due
not only to the substantive incompatibilities among different environmental treaties, but
also the operational inefficiency being one of the key problems. See also the comments
of Bethany Lukitsch Hicks, “Treaty Congestion in International Environmental Law: The
Need for Greater International Coordination” (1998–1999) 32 University of Richmond
Law Review 1643–1675. There are rapid legal developments in the field of international
environmental law, with approximately 900 treaties (binding and non-binding) that
have provisions substantively addressing the environment. See Weiss, “International
Environmental Law” at p. 679. See van Asselt, “Managing the Fragmentation of Inter-
national Environmental Law: Forests at the Intersection of the Climate and Biodiversity
Regimes” at p. 1208. The author noted the emergence of environmental treaties in a
piecemeal fashion led to a multiplication of multilateral, regional, and bilateral treaties
in the field, with some estimates of almost 3,000 environmental treaties adopted.
31 Schwebel 3rd Report, at para. 311. Uniformity, consistency, and unity in the international
legal order instrumental in setting out a secure framework for international players to
initiate and sustain cooperation. See initiative by Gerhard Hafner, “Risk Ensuing from
Fragmentation of International Law” Annex of ILC, “Report of the Commission to the
General Assembly on the Work of Its Fifty-second Session” (2000) II(2) Yearbook of
the International Law Commission 1–152, at p. 149 <http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/
yearbooks/Ybkvolumes(e)/ILC_2000_v2_p2_e.pdf> accessed 24 March 2014. It is stated
that—
“In light of the growing factual integration of world community on the one hand, and
the proliferation of subsystems on the other, it is to be expected that the need to take
measures to ensure the unity of the international legal order will increase.”
Gilbert Guillaume, “The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Outlook for the
International Legal Order” (Speech by His Excellency Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President
of the ICJ to the Sixth Committee of the UNGA, 27 October 2000) <http://www.icj-cij.org/
court/index.php?pr=85&pt=3&p1=1&p2=3&p3=1> accessed 27 January 2011. It is stated,
at p. 4 that—
Certainly, international law must adapt itself to the variety of fields with which it
has to deal, as national law has done. It must also adapt itself to local and regional
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 AFLEIDING VAN DIE WOORD BOESMAN.

Van die name wat ander nasies vir hul gegee het, sal later weer iets gemeld word as ons die
verhouding tussen die Boesmans en hulle bure behandel; maar ons sal nou eers ons eie
woord vir die eienaardige dwergies moet bespreek. Boesmans, Bushmen, Buschmänner,
Boschimans—al die beskaafde tale lei die woord af van die Neerlandse Bosjesmannen. Hoe
Bosjesmannen verkort word tot Boesmans en nie Bosmans of Bossiesmans nie, kan ons
voorlopig oorlaat aan ons Afrikaanse taalgeleerdes; maar hoe kom die Hollanders aan die
naam Bosjesman? Al die oudste Hollandse reisigers gebruik die woord Sonqua (wat vandag,
sover die skrywer weet, alleen nog bestaan in die woord sonquariet) vir die nasie. Hoe het
dit dan gekom dat die ander naam populêr geword is? En waar kom dit vandaan? Die mense
was tog nie bos-bewoners nie. Soos Fritsch in sy “Die Eingeborenen Südafrikas” sê,
Lichtenstein se bewering dat hulle Bosjesmannen genoem word, omdat hulle agter bossies
woon, is belaglik; net soos die rede van die “Select Committee on Aborigines” wat beweer
het dat die naam te wyte is aan die feit dat die ras liewer op die veld of in die bos wou lewe
as om diensbodes van die blanke te word. Fritsch gee ’n ander afleiding van die woord. Hy
wil hê dat die Neerlandse woord sou gelyk staan nie met die Duitse woord “Waldbewohner”
nie, maar met “Waldmensch” d.w.s., ’n indiwidu van ’n seker fabelagtige ras wat soölogies
tussen man en aap staan. Om dit te bewys haal hy aan dat Van Riebeek in sy dagboek
melding maak dat hulle op die berg, ’n dooie “Boschmanneken” gevind het, wat in Batavia
“Ooerang-oetang” heet. Dit sou dan ’n skelnaam vir die Boesmans geword het wat mettertyd
meer en meer populêr geword het, en meer in die Nederlandse mond pas as die uitheemse
woord “Sonqua.” Fritsch siteer ook ’n offisiële berig van die jaar 1685 wat meld dat
“Kaptein Klaas, ’n Hottentothoofman, oorlog gemaak het met die Sonqua, algemeen
‘Bosjesmannen’ genoem.”

Dit mag vir sommige ongeloofbaar klink dat die koloniste deur dié aangenome naam, dit
feitlik in twyfel trek of die Boesman werklik mens is, maar selfs tot in die dae van “Die
Patriot” het daar twyfel bestaan, en die lesers het serieus die vraagstuk in die
korrespondensie-kolomme van genoemde blad bespreek. Lichtenstein in die begin van die
neentiende eeu vertel dat die Boere nie meer eerbied vir die lyk van ’n Boesman betoon het,
as die van ’n wilde dier nie. In 1850 is daar ’n boek geskrywe deur Rev. Thornley Smith, ’n
Wesleyaanse sendeling met sewe jaar ondervinding in Suid-Afrika, en die volgende
vertaling van ’n paar sinne uit sy boek bewys dat dié Eerwaarde heer self twyfel had, of dag
dat sy Engelse lesers miskien sou twyfel of die kleintjies regtig mense was. Hy beskrywe ’n
grot met Boesmantekeninge versier, en dan sê hy:—

“Waarvandaan, mag ’n mens vra, het die wilde bewoners van die kranse hulle kuns gekry? Durf ons
dit beskou as ’n bewys van ’n bewussyn? Word sulke vaardigheid ooit geopenbaar buiten deur die
mens?”
En as die mense van die neentiende eeu—Afrikaners sowel as uitlanders—nie oor die punt
eens is nie, is dit tog heeltemal aanneembaar dat Van Riebeek se mense, ongewoon aan die
neger, seker was dat die Boesmans nie aan die menslike ras behoort.

F i g . II.

A., Rotstekening naby Wadi Telisaghe, 100 myl wes van Murzuk,
Noord-Afrika, (na Barth “Travels in North and Central Africa”).

B., Groep Boesmantekeninge saamgestel deur die skrywer uit

verskillende bronne.

Sien bds. 12.

Fritsch se verklaring dan van die afleiding van die woord Bosjesman is waarskynlik die
regte; maar molik sal ons taalgeleerdes deur die vorm “Boesman”, op ’n verklaring kom wat
nog meer aanneembaar is as die van Fritsch.
 VOEDSEL VAN DIE BOESMAN.

Maar dit is nie te sê, al het die Boesmans ook ’n pedigree soveel duisende jare oud, dat hulle
aristokrate was, of die fyn maniere had wat ’n mens van die lui verwag nie. Om nou met
hulle ete en drinke te begin: soos Fritsch dit uitdruk, eet hulle enigiets wat hul tande kan
kou, en drink hulle alles wat nat is. En dit is byna letterlik waar. Die ou reisigers gaan nog
taamlik diep in onaangename besonderhede om te vertel hoe hulle die h e l e dier skoon
opgeëet het—net die bene bly oor, en hulle word vir die murg gebreek. Weliswaar dat hulle
bygeloof hul belet het om een of ander, vir ons heeltemal skoon, deel van ’n dier te eet, soos
byvoorbeeld die biltongvleis van die hasie; maar dit was alleen hulle bygeloof, en dit was
geen idee van gesondheid of fynheid wat hul beweeg het nie! By die slag van ’n dier, maak
hul, volgens die beskrywing van Barrington in 1810, ’n bloeddrank aan wat afskuwelik
morsig en vuil is. Wie verder informasie hieromtrent verlang moet maar die eerste band van
Barrington se boek “An Account of a voyage to New South Wales”, naslaan.

Maar dit gebeur dikwels dat ’n Boesman die oorblyfsels van ’n leeu se buit of ander aas
raakloop, en dan as daar nog veel kos op sit, trek hy met sy hele famielie na die plek en
kampeer daar tot die bene kaalgekou is.

Dit is moeilik vir ons om ’n idee te vorm van die aptyt van ’n Boesman, maar ’n kort
uittreksel uit Lichtenstein se Reisverhaal sal darem ’n bietjie lig op die saak werp. Hy vertel
van ene Baardman, ’n berugte Boesman-dief wat voor die Landdros gekom het. Toe die
Landdros hom vra waarom hy gesteel het,

“wys hy na sy lyf wat in plooie hang, en nadat hy ’n plooi in sy hand beetgeneem het, trek hy dit uit
sover dit kon gaan, om te wys hoeveel sy huid kon hou as dit vol is; en toe, sonder om te wag op ’n
aanmerking op die aanskouelike rede vir sy rowery, smeek hy vir iets om te eet, alhoewel hy, sowat
’n uur van te vore, op ’n goeie ontbyt trakteer is.”

Mej. Bleek vertel vir die skrywer dat die Boesman in sy taal nie minder as vyf werkwoorde
het om te beskrywe hoe dik hy hom geëet het nie, en ons kry dus alweer hulp van die
filoloog in ons poging om die eetvermoë van dié mensies te besef.
 ONREINIGHEID.

Maar selfs met hulle enorme kapasiteit, as die dier groot is, en die famielie klein, spreek dit
vanself dat die Boesman in die somer werklik wedywer met die aasvoël, nie alleen in die
skerpte van sy oë nie, maar ook in sy smaak vir geurige kos. En as die geur van die
sterkruikende aas hul nie verhinder om dit tussen hul lippe te sit nie, moet ons ons ook nie
verwonder as die teenwoordigheid van ’n Boesman dikwels deur die neus te bespeur is
voordat die oog hom sien, want hul het hul lyf met vet besmeer, en ’n Boesman sou nie
somaar goeie eetbare vet gebruik nie! Op die vet kom dan stof, as, of op feesdae, rooi of
ander kleur verf. En, was? Nee, dit was by die Boesman ’n onbekende iets. Fritsch in sy
behandeling van die huidkleur van die ras, gee vir ons terloops ’n goeie idee van hoe vuil hul
was. Hy bekla die moeilikheid wat ’n mens het om die ware kleur te sien, want die huid lê
onder ’n dik laag vuil. Maar gelukkig, sê hy, kom daar darem water op hul huid as hul deur
’n rivier moet gaan, en met die natuurlike werking van die huid, skilwer die stof ook af,
sodat daar hier en daar ’n min of meer skoon kolletjie sigbaar word totdat hul hul weer
smeer.

Maar miskien is die beste aanhaling nog die naïewe manier waarop Campbell vertel van hoe
hulle sy raad ontvang het. Hy sê:

“Ek het die Boesmans, wat baie vuil is, aanbeveel om hulle af-en-toe in die naburige vleie te was.
Hulle het die idee grappig gevind, maar kon nie verstaan waartoe dit sou dien nie.”

Later vertel hy ons weer van ’n ander paartjie wat hy ontmoet het, en toe hy vir die man vra
wanneer hy hom laas gewas het, bly die hom ’n antwoord skuldig, maar die meid die skater
van die lag!
 ONSEDELIKHEID.

Vuil met hul kos, vuil op hul liggaam, wat moet ons van hul sedes sê? Die beste is dat hulle
sedes nie ons sedes is nie. As ons danse maar ’n tiende so erg was as hulle ’Ko-’Ku-curra of
fluitjiedans, of die Wysgeerdans, sou geen fatsoenlike Afrikaner na ’n dansparty kan gaan
nie.
 KINDERMOORD.

Kindermoord by hulle was ook niks kwaads nie—’n mismaakte of abnormale kind word
vermoor; as die moeder sterwe voordat die kind gespeen is, moet hy dood. Selfs ouer
kinders word in die graf van hul moeder begrawe. Campbell vertel hoe Adam Kok twee
Boesmanmeidjies, van tien, en twee-en-’n-half jaar, gered het van hulle ouma wat hulle
lewendig in hul moeder se graf wou begrawe. Toe sy haar sin nie kon kry nie dreig sy om
hulle te vermoor. Ja, die lewe van ’n kind was maar onseker onder die Boesmans in die ou
dae, miskien nog meer onseker as die lewe van die Boesman se hond, die enigste dier wat hy
ooit makgemaak het—sy enigste lewende hawe.

As ’n man sy vrou verlaat, vermoor sy die kinders. As twee mans rusie maak, vermoor die
verlieser ’n kind of wat van die oorwinnaar om die skuld te vereffen!
 F i g . III.

A., Rotstekening in Tibesti, 450 myl suid van Murzuk, (na Ratzell en Nachtigal).

B., Boesmantekening, (na Tongue).

Fig. II en III wys ooreenkoms tussen Noord- en Suid-Afrikaanse primitiewe kuns.

(Sien bds. 12).

En hul oumense het ook maar swaar gekry. As hulle in ’n geveg met man of dier hul
doodhou kry, kan hul vir hul maar gelukkig ag; want anders breek die dag so seker wanneer
die ou grysaard uitgesleep word om vir wolwekos te dien, of wanneer hy met ’n klein
rantsoen agtergelaat word as die span moet trek. Dieselfde noodlot tref hul tog. Mans, ja
selfs vrouens sleep op hierdie manier hul moeders uit die grot uit na die kaal veld, en kom
terug net so kalm as wanneer hulle van die fontein met ’n volstruiseierdop vol water
terugkom.
 MOORD EN DIEFSTAL.

En dit het alles plaasgevind toe Boesman alleen ’n onverdeelde Suid-Afrika besit het. Toe hy
sy eie mense moes vermoor as die moordlus in hom begin opwel; maar toe ander rasse begin
inkom, en ’n nuwe soort “wild” (d.w.s. skape en beeste) op sy jagterrein verskyn het, was
daar nuwe mense om te vermoor, en nuwe redes daartoe. Na die witman se aankoms was dit
eers die Hottentotskaapwagter wat hul vermoor het om die vee in die hande te kry. Die
geliefkoosde wyse was om sy kop in te slaan terwyl hy slaap, sê Fritsch, en al die ou
reisigers vertel van moord van die wagters en steel van die vee. Maar hulle het nie alleen
wagters vermoor nie, ook loslopende mense, soos onder ander, een van Lichtenstein se
bodes. Hoe erg hulle by die begin van die neentiende eeu was, kan ’n mens besef as jy die
dagverhaal van die reisigers van daardie dae lees, en merk hoe dikwels hulle, selfs in die
kort tydjie van die duur van hul reis, iets van moord en diefstal van die Boesmans te sê het.
En hoe langer die stryd aanhou, hoe wreder word die Boesman. Dieselfde Barrington al
vroeër aangehaal, vertel hoe hulle ’n Hottentot begrawe het sodat sy kop net uitsteek, en hoe
hy die hele dag lank die kraaie moes wegja met kopbeweginge. Gelukkig is die Hottentot die
aand nog gered.
 MISHANDELING VAN DIERE.

En met vee wat hul gesteel het, het dit ook maar sleg gegaan. Soos Mentzel sê, die Boesman
wil nie, of weet nie hoe om, vee op te pas nie, om hulle te laat wei en vermenigvuldig nie, en
so moet die gebuite vee maar daar bly totdat die Boesman en die roofdiere van hul
skoonveld gemaak het! En as die Boer die verlies merk, en die Boesman agtervolg en inhaal
voordat hy by sy kraal kan kom, beseer die Boesman eers die vee voor hy hul verlaat, en
vlug om die veiligheid van sy eie vel te verseker. Dié onnodige, doellose, wrede behandeling
van die stomme diere het die Boere baie vererg.

Die getalle vee wat gesteel is, word dikwels aangehaal deur die ou reisigers, maar gewoonlik
is daar so min bygaande feite gegee dat die blote syfers nie veel waarde het nie; maar
Lichtenstein getuig van grensboere wat verplig was om hul plase te verlaat weens die rowery
en moor van die Boesmans. Joachim, Baron van Plettenberg, ook, ’n vyf-en-twintig jaar
vroeër, bespreek ernstig of seker distrikte of grense al dig genoeg deur die Blankes bewoon
is om dit veilig teen die Boesman te maak. Die feite spreek baie meer duidelik as
onvolledige statistiek.

Daar het u ’n beeld van die Boesman soos die Koloniste van ’n anderhalf eeu gelede hom
geken het—die vuil dief, die onsedelike moordenaar, bewoner van ’n vuil grot, met die
wêreld tevrede as daar net genoeg vleis, heuning (vir karrie) en dagga (of tabak) by die hand
is. “Das unglückselige Kind des Augenblickes” soos Fritsch hom beskrywe, byna sonder
enige idee van spaarsaamheid of voorsorg—kortom, ’n knaende iets wat nie saam met die
beskawing van die Blankes kon bestaan, en ook nie daarmee ingelyf word nie.

Vandag is hul binne die grense van die Unie feitlik uitgesterwe. Alleen die wrede woestyn
het ’n vriendelike hand vir hul uitgestrek, en in sy boesem ontvang; en daar, waar Witman
nie kan woon nie, bestaan die laaste klompie van die volk wat eenkeer ’n groot deel van die
hele wêreld besit of bewoon het.
 UITROEIING VAN DIE BOESMAN.

En hoe is hulle uitgesterwe? Uitgeroei deur die koeël van die Blanke! Die geskiedenis van
daardie moord is nie plesierig vir ons Blankes om te lees nie, noudat ons nie die skade wat
die mense veroorsaak het, kan voel nie. Gruweldade was daar in oorvloed! Die Blankes het
maar hier te werk gegaan soos in Australië en ander lande waar Europeane ’n lae ras
kleurlinge tref, ja, soos hul twee- of drie-en-twintig jaar gelede weer in die Langberg gedoen
het. Ons kan maar herhaal wat Mark Twain, in sy ligsinnig geuite, maar raak en fyn-
uitgedagte sinne geskrywe het in sy skets van die verhouding tussen die eerste Australiese
Koloniste en die inboorling:

“More promising materials for a tragedy could not have been gathered together.”

En soos dit in Australië ’n treurspel afgegee het, het dit hier ook maar ’n treurspel afgegee.
Vir ons doel is dit gelukkig onnodig om in besonderhede in te gaan. Dit is politieke en nie
kultuurgeskiedenis nie, en ’n donker geskiedenis met maar weinig ligstrale daarin; maar daar
dit tog die uitwerking is van ’n stryd tussen die kultuur en beskawing van die Blanke teen
die beskawing en kultuur van die Sonqua, om hom sy deftige naam te gee, sal dit miskien
toepaslik wees om twee uittreksels te gee uit die werke van twee Engelse skrywers voordat
ons die gordyn laat sak op hierdie onaangename tonele in die geskiedenis van ons land.

“Is it not the fate of the savage and uncivilized on this earth to give way to the more cunning and the
better informed, to knowledge and civilization? It is the order of the world and the right one: nor
will all the lamentations of a mawkish philanthropy, with its more absurd or censurable efforts, avail
one jot against an order of things as wise as it is assuredly established.”—[Sir John Ross—Narative
of a voyage in search of a Northwest Passage—1835, bds. 257.]

Sprekende oor die uitroei van die Tasmaniërs, sê Sollas in “Ancient Hunters and their
modern Representatives”:

“It is a sad story, and we can only hope that the replacement of a people with a cranial capacity of
only about 1200 c.c., by one with a capacity of nearly one-third greater may prove ultimately of
advantage in the evolution of mankind.”
 F i g . IV.

a tot c—Australiese kuns, (na Sollas).

d tot g—Tekeninge van Eskimo’s (na Breuil).

Fig. IV en V wys die verskil tussen die kuns van Afrikaanse “natuur volke” en die
van ander lande.
 DIE SAAK VAN DIE BOESMAN SE KANT BESKOU.

Die beskuldigde het voorgekom, en ongehoord, is hy ter dood veroordeel. Dit help nie nou
om sy pleidooi op te stel nie, sy bene, deur die aasvoëls skoongevreet, is al lankal vergaan;
maar om die toestand van die jagterras beter te verstaan, is dit goed om ook die saak van
hulle kant te bestudeer.

Hulle was vuil, ja, gewis; maar is dit ’n rede waarom hulle moes uitgeroei word? Hulle was
nie kieskeurig wat hulle ete betref nie, maar waarom moet hulle as ’n lekkerny vir die
aasvoëls opgedis word? Hulle bure, die Hottentotte, was maar net so vuil. Die ingewande
van diere, effens skoongemaak en opgeblaas het hul gedien as sieraad om hul enkels en as
beskerming teen slange. Die toestand van die halfskoongemaakte versieringe na ’n paar dae
kan die geagte leser vir homself maar voorstel. En as meneer Hottentot miskien ’n rukkie
daarna hongerly, eet hy sy enkelbande maar op! Is daar veel te kies tussen die Boesman en
Hottentot wat reinheid betref?

En bestaan daar nie ’n goeie rede vir die laag stof wat die Boesman oor die huid gedra het
nie? Soos Jonkvrou Augusta Uitenhage de Mist, dogter van die Kommissaris opmerk, het dit
gedien as ’n beskerming teen die steek van insekte, en Ratzel vertel ons van die inboorlinge
van Australië wat dieselfde mode gevolg het, met die resultaat dat alleen n a die koms van
die Blanke, en na hulle die liggaam begin was het, hulle nader kennis gemaak het met seker
intieme wesentjies waarmee die Afrikaner in die Engelse oorlog ook in baie nou aanraking
gekom het.

So verwyt mense ook die Boesmans omdat hulle nie huise gebou het nie, nie bedde gehad
het nie, maar in neste in die grond soos volstruise geslaap het; maar hulle moet darem
daarby voeg wat die Boesmans sê, naamlik, dat van die Blanke in die land gekom het, hulle
nooit met hul voete onder die karos geslaap het nie, en met die uitbreiding van die
vervolging van die Boesman deur die Blankes, die arme Barbaar later verplig was om sy
woning so eenvoudig, en soveel molik na ’n bossie te laat lyk, sodat dit nie die aandag van
sy beskaafde vyand moet trek nie. Kortom, het hy gebruik gemaak van die kuns nou weer
deur die Franse ontdek: “camouflage.”

Sedelikheid is maar relatief. Hoe onsedelik moet ons dames by ’n teater of bal nie lyk vir die
Slamse vrouens wat net hul oë voor die publiek ontbloot! Vir ander rasse is die mond iets
onsedeliks wat moet bedek word, en hulle beskou dit as ’n bewys van ’n betreurenswaardige
gebrek aan opvoeding as iemand, voor ander, kos in sy mond sou neem! So is dit ook in die
geval van die Boesman; ons noem onsedelik alles wat nie pas by die sedes van ons kultuur
nie, en dit is ook moeilik om van enige ander standpunt die saak te beskou. Van ons oogpunt
egter, moet ons erken dat die Boesman baie minder onsedelik is as ander inboorlinge in
Suid-Afrika, en selfs as die grootste meerderheid van inboorlinge in die hele wêreld.
Die moord van suigelinge, ouder ’n jagterstam soos die Boesman, na die dood van die
moeder, is nie ’n bewys van wreedheid nie. Hulle had geen meelbol of ander spesiaal
vervaardigde kinderkos nie. Hulle had nie gomelastieke tepels en bottels nie. Was die moord
van die suigeling nie die gouste en genadigste einde aan die lyding van die kindjie nie? En
die verlaat van die oumense is ’n verstandige opoffering van die indiwidu vir die hele stam,
wat by alle jagter-rasse gevind word. Die oues bring nie alleen niks in nie, maar is nog bo-op
’n hindernis en ’n las wat die werksaamhede en beweeglikheid van die stam strem, nog te
meer as deur droogte of wat ook al, die wild trek en hul agterna moet volg.

Van die begrawe van die ouer kinders in die graftes van hul moeders is daar nie ’n goeie
ekonomiese rede te vinde nie. Tot dusver, egter, is die skrywer nie oortuig dat dit algemeen
onder die Boesmans was nie, en het ook niks gevinde wat hy as die rede kan aannneem nie.
Molik het dit ’n godsdienstige sy, iets in verband met hul Geloof, wat ons later weer sal
aanroer. Maar terwyl ons met die moord van famielielede besig is, is dit miskien nuttig om
een uit honderde gelykstaande feite aan te haal, om die regte perspektief te kry in verband
met die onderwerp. Omtrent die helfte van die kinders van die Australiese inboorlinge is
vermoor by hulle geboorte deur die moeder wat ’n skerp houtpen deur die oor, in die
babetjie se brein slaan, en hoe meer van haar eie kinders ’n vrou vermoor, hoe hoër staan sy
in die samelewing!

Vir die moord van skaapwagters en steel van vee is dit amper nie nodig om die Boesmans se
sienswyse te gee nie—die rede is so duidelik. Lank voor die koms van die Blanke was die
Boesmans al baas in Suid-Afrika: die hele land was sy weiveld, en die wild, sy vee. Elke
stam of famielie het sy eie jagterrein gehad en ’n oortreding van die grense daarvan deur ’n
ander stam het oorlog veroorsaak. En toe kom die veeboer—Hottentot, Bantoe, of Boer—en
neem besit van sy fonteine, jag op sy terrein, en laat die vee daarop wei. Van die Boesman se
staanpunt, is dit ’n oortreding van sy wet, van die wet van die land. Soiets moet gestraf
word, en dit ook volgens die wet van die land. ’n Oog vir ’n oog, ’n tand vir ’n tand sê die
wet van Moses—diefstal vir diefstal sê die Boesman: “Jy het my water gesteel, my boerdery
omvergegooi, ek sal jou daarvoor beboet, en as dit nodig is om jou skaapwagter dood te
maak om my vonnis uit te voer, wat daarvan?”

Daar is verskillende vermoedelike redes waarom die Boesman die vee mishandel het by ’n
onsuksesvolle strooptog, maar dit is moeilik om te weet wat die regte doel was. Was dit maar
die kinderagtige weerwraak wat ’n mens ook sien in die beweerde moord van die
oorwinnaar se kind na ’n stryd? Is dit dat hulle gehoop het om ook na ’n paar dae van die
vleis van die verlate diere te kom eet? Of is dit werklik die uitwerking van ’n vaste idee om
die vee, d.w.s. die bestaan van die blanke, uit te roei, en dit daardeur vir hom onmolik te
maak om dit daar uit te hou? Wat ook al die rede is, soas al gemeld, het dit in baie gevalle
dié gevolg gehad.
 F i g . V.

Primitiewe Kuns van: A., Noord Amerika (Kalifornië); B., Kolumbië; C., Brazilië;
D., Venezuela (na Breuil), E., Ceylon (na Seligmann en Sollas).

Dat die Boesman nie oneerlik is nie, maar alleen ’n ander idee van eerlikheid had, is al
lankal bewys. Onder die eerste Koloniste wat dit ingesien het, en die feit in ’n pleidooi vir
die Boesmans gebruik het was Ds. A. Faure. Die grensboere in die ou dae het dikwels hul
kuddes aan Boesmans toevertrou om hulle in Boesmanland te laat wei, en altoos is die vee
veilig teruggebring. Soos Mnr. Smit van Dasfontein naby Beaufort, ’n man wat van
kindsbeen die Boesman en sy taal geken het, vir Campbell in 1820 gesê het, en soos Mnr.
E. B. Watermeyer vandag ook konstateer, kan jy ’n Boesman vertrou met alles wat jy
formeel in sy sorg plaas, maar wat opgesluit is, of wat aan die buurman behoort, is nie veilig
nie.
 GODSDIENS.

En soos sy idee van eerlikheid ’n verdraaide was vergeleke met ons ideë, so was dit ook met
hulle Geloof of Godsdiens of wat gewoonlik by sulke primitiewe rasse godsdiens heet.

Die meeste outoriteite beweer dat die Boesman glad geen godsdiens, of glad geen idee van
’n Opperwese had nie; maar daar is veel feite wat nie maklik te verstaan is as dit werklik
waar is. Om hieroor ’n duidelike begrip te kry, is dit nodig om eers te besluit wat ons
verstaan deur godsdiens. As dit ’n geloof is in bowenatuurlike wesens, en in ’n lewe of iets
na die dood, dan het die Boesmans ongetwyfeld van godsdiens iets af geweet. Bestaan
godsdiens in die geloof aan een enkele Almagtige Opperwese, dan het daar geen
Boesmangodsdiens bestaan nie. Maar om ’n geloof aan een God te soek onder die Boesmans
wanneer die Grieke selfs met al hul ontwikkeling nie die begrip gehad het nie, is dwaas.

Hier weer voel die skrywer die onrypheid van sy behandeling van die onderwerp, en hier
weer is ’n deel van die kultuur van die Boesman wat ’n aparte lesing vra. Die materiaal is
nie alles vertroubaar nie, en lê so ver versprei, dat dit maar partykeer moeilik gaan om, soos
die jong in die ou storie, die agterpoot en die oor bymekaar te kry. En daar bly ook altyd die
gevoel by ’n mens dat by die volgende bron wat jy insien, jy iets sal vind wat jou ideë geheel
en al omvergooi, en wat dit nodig maak om heelwat dood te krap wat jy op ’n vroeër
geleentheid geskrywe het. Met hierdie verder waarskuwings en aanmerkings in die oog, laat
ons maar na die Geloof van die Boesman terugkeer.

Mejuffrou Bleek beweer ook dat die Boesman geen God, en dus ook geen naam vir hom had
nie. Daar was wel bowenatuurlike wesens wat hul gevrees het, waarvan die meesgevreesde
miskien die Reen of Reenbul1 was; maar uit wat sy sê, lyk dit asof dit nie soseer die reen,
maar meer die droogte is wat hul gevrees het. “As jy so en so doen, of sê, dan kom die reent
nie!” het hulle mekaar gewaarsku. Sal dit nou ’n geloof wees wat hul met hul saamgebring
het uit die Noorde, of is dit iets wat hul hier in ons dorre streke opgedoen het?

In die Noorde vind ons sonaanbidders, maar sover die skrywer weet is daar nie in die hele
Suid-Afrika een enkele stam of ras inboorlinge wat die Son as die hoof aanbid nie, terwyl vir
almal die maan die plaas van die son min of meer in hul godsdiens inneem. So het die
Boesman nou ook die maan en sterre aanbid. Op so weinig getuienis as die skrywer het, durf
hy nie ’n teorie baseer nie; maar vra is vry. In kou, nat Europa is die son altoos ’n ding van
vreugde; maar tussen die keerkringe, of op ons dorre Karo, is dit die koelte dikwels wat ’n
mens soek. In Europa is daar rede vir sonaanbiddery; maar sal ’n volk wat met so ’n geloof
’n trek begin en ’n duisend jaar miskien in die nabyheid van die ewenaar vertoef nog altoos
aan die ou geloof vashou? Is dit nie redelik om te vermoed dat die heerlike koel
maanligaande hul sal verlei nie, en dat die valse maangodin hul sal oorwin nie? Die
Boesman het vir Dr. Bleek vertel dat hul hulle oë toemaak wanneer hulle die sterre aanbid. Is
dit nog ’n oorblyfsel van die sonaanbiddery? Fakkels word ook gebruik in hul gebede, en in
hul folklore vind ’n mens ook die idee van wierook.

In bose geeste, towery en paljas het hule vas geglo, ook in die Reenbul.

Stow beweer dat hul die Hottentotsgot, en ook ’n ander rispe aanbid het, maar alhoewel dit
waar mag wees, moet ons daardeur nie verstaan dat dit vir hulle heilig was, of dat hul selfs
soveel eerbied daarvoor getoon het as die Bantoe vir sy “Siboko” of die Australiër vir sy
“totem” nie; want hulle het nie omgegee om die insekte te vang, en dood te maak nie. Dat
daar iets geheimsinnigs was in verband met die Hottentotsgot of !Kaggen soos hul hom
noem, was hulle van seker, soos die stories van die diertjie getuig, maar die mees treffende
gebed wat die skrywer nog van hul gelees het, is die gebed aan die ster Canopus, ’n ster wat
in die koudste deel van die jaar net kort voor sonop opkom. En die Boesman bid dan vir die
ster om hitte in die son te sit! Daar is ook ander pragtige stories van Gode en Godinne, soos
die van Goha en Ka wat Makoon ’n Boesmankaptein vir Campbell vertel het, maar dit kan
ons nou nie ondersoek nie. Vir al die Gode het hul om kos gebid—om hul te wys waar die
miereiers die sogenaamde Boesmanrys te vinde is, of vir wild, of vir sekerheid by hul
pylskiet.

F i g . VI.

Die Reenbul—na ’n tekening van Orpen in die Grey Kolleksie, Openbare Biblioteek, Kaapstad.

(Sien bds. 29.)

Makoon, dieselfde Boesman wat vir Campbell die storie van Goha vertel het, het hom ook
vertel dat hy nie in ’n lewe na die dood glo nie, maar dat as ’n mens doodgaan, jy heelternal
dood is. Uit wat ander Boesmans weer sê, sowel as uit hul gedigte, is dit weer duidelik dat
hul wel in ’n toekomstige lewe glo. En hul folklore-stories is net so teenstrydig; maar dat
daar darem onder hul ’n geloof is dat daar iets anderkant die graf lê, is taamlik seker. Soos
die ou Palaeolietiese man, en baie ander barbare, het die Boesman die gewoonte gehad om
’n lid van ’n vinger (gewoonlik van die pinkie) af te sit. Die ware betekenis van die afsit is
moeilik om agter te kom. By seker volke het dit duidelik iets met die huwelik te doen, by
ander word dit deur die towerdokter vir geneeskundige doeleindes aanbeveel. Dan is dit
weer ’n offerande aan die bose geeste in geval van epidemies; ook word daar by die
begrafnis van die hoof van seker volke ’n getal vingerlitte met die grootman begrawe, min of
meer soos baie volke weduwees en ander famielie van ’n man saam met hom die ewigheid
vir geselskap instuur. Waarom volg die Boesman die gewoonte? Barrington beweer dat die
Boesmans dit gedoen het om van siektes ontslae te raak, en Mejuffrou Bleek vertel die
skrywer dat in die ongepubliseerde materiaal deur haar vader en Mejuffrou Lloyd versamel,
daar ’n storie voorkom wat dieselfde rede gee. In die “Bushman Folklore” van Bleek en
Lloyd, word vertel dat die mans die eerste lit van die regterpinkie, en die vrouens die van die
linkerpinkie afgesit het, maar daar word geen rede gegee nie. Stow beweer weer dat die rede
is dat hul na hul dood baie kos sal hê op hul reis na ’Too’Ga, die vergaderplek van die
oorledene. As Stow se bewering reg is, kan daar geen twyfel bestaan dat hulle in ’n lewe na
die dood geglo het nie.

Die vroeër genoemde mnr. Smit van Dasfontein het ook vir Campbell vertel dat die lyke
begrawe word met die oorlede se wapens aan sy sy, sodat hy hom na sy opstanding weer kan
verdedig, en kos verkry; maar as die oorledene onpopulêr is, begrawe hul hom sonder
wapens.

Sir George Keith (1819) in die beskrywing van sy reis na Suid-Afrika, vertel dat na die dood
van ’n vriend hul sy gees aanspreek, en beledig hom omdat hy hul so vroeg verlaat het. Hy
kon mos, sê hul, nog ’n bietjie by hul vertoef het. Livingstone vertel weer dat by ’n seker
Boesman-begrafenis die vriende die dooie aanspreek en hom beleef vra om nie kwaad te
wees nie al wil hulle (d.w.s. die vriende?) nog ’n tydjie op die aarde bly.

Die paar aanhalings is vermoedelik genoeg bewys dat die Boesmans nie geglo het dat met
die dood alles eindig nie.

Daar is ander interessante feite in verband met die godsdiens wat baie aanloklik is om na te
gaan, maar die skrywer is huiwerig om op die oomblik enige gevolgtrekkinge te maak, en lê
die feite maar voor soos hy hul gevind het. Almal wat met inboorlinge gewerk het, weet hoe
lief hul is om maar, ja, te sê op alle vrae wat hul nie goed verstaan nie, en hoe moeilik dit is
om die waarheid te leer. Daarby moet ’n mens nog rekening hou met die feit dat die
Boesman al jare in aanraking met ander stamme gewees het, en daarom moet ons ook
voorsigtig wees met ons gevolgtrekkings gebaseer op die informasie deur later skrywers
verskaf. Die sendelinge het ook aan die Boesmans gearbei, en by die oorweging van die
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebookgate.com