The Nile Question: The Accords on the Water of the Nile and Their Implications on

Some authorities identify the Nile basin as one of the hotspots in an area where violent conflict could break out over the shared water resource because of the various hydropolitical intricacies it involves. Mounting demands for more water, an alarming population growth rate, the absence of comprehensive legal and institutional frameworks, and relations among the riparian states that are marred with suspicion and misunderstanding, are among the major factors creating the potential for an extreme conflict in the basin. To date, the Basin states have not been able to cooperate in order to devise a solution to the issue of the Nile – the utilisation and management of Nile water for the benefit of all riparian states. One of the impediments to such a solution, is the absence of a basinwide agreement. Although there have been various agreements over the Nile River, none of these has involved more than three states. The accords constitute one of the hurdles in the path towards cooperation. This article reviews the main agreements which have decided control over the Nile, their traits, and the implications for cooperative schemes in the basin. It also examines the current promising initiative, the Nile Basin Initiative, as a possible way forward to reach comprehensive cooperation. The article does not examine all the problems enveloping the Nile basin. It limits itself to the legal aspects of the questions of the Nile and proposes appropriate approaches to accords on the water of the Nile. Further, it concentrates on three countries, Egypt, the Sudan and Ethiopia, which are considered to be central actors in the Nile issues and deals with the accords involving them, or concluded on their behalf, during the colonial period

The Art of Persuasion: International/Comparative Human Rights, The Supreme Court of Canada and the Reconstitution of the Canadian Security Certificate Regime

In this dissertation, the author explores the jurisprudential foundations of the “relevant and persuasive” doctrine, which authorizes Canadian judges to rely on international and comparative human rights when interpreting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Viewed in its best light, this doctrine improves respect for human rights in two distinct ways: securing Canada’s compliance with its international human rights obligations and enhancing the responsiveness of state law to the global and multicultural context of Canadian society. However, actual jurisprudence suggests that the doctrine has helped undermine principles of respect for constitutional supremacy and respect for international law, in part because it does not contain clear, objective criteria governing what counts as a relevant and persuasive norm. In the absence of such criteria, “result-oriented” judges are free to instrumentally pick norms that help rationalize decisions made entirely on the basis of political and ideological factors. Some would go so far as to argue that the doctrine enables judges to use the rhetoric of human rights to constitutionally entrench relations of domination; there is some empirical evidence to support this claim. Given the increasingly global context of contemporary judicial decision-making, it is surprising that judges have not yet offered a convincing justification for the relevant and persuasive doctrine. This dissertation attempts to offer such a justification. Weaving together a wide range of legal and moral philosophy, argumentation theory and international law/international relations theory, the author hypothesizes that judicial decisions about the relevance and persuasiveness of international and comparative human rights follow the contours of rhetorical and dialogical processes distinctive to law. With a view to testing this hypothesis, he develops analytical frameworks that help observers rationally identify, construct and evaluate “persuasive” international and comparative human rights arguments. Using the court-led reconstitution of the Canadian security certificate regime as a case study, he then attempts to demonstrate how the relevant and persuasive doctrine operates, how it coheres with principles of respect for constitutional supremacy and international law, and how it can improve respect for human rights among a wide range of globally-situated discursive communities

The Art of Persuasion: International/Comparative Human Rights, The Supreme Court of Canada and the Reconstitution of the Canadian Security Certificate Regime

In this dissertation, the author explores the jurisprudential foundations of the “relevant and persuasive” doctrine, which authorizes Canadian judges to rely on international and comparative human rights when interpreting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Viewed in its best light, this doctrine improves respect for human rights in two distinct ways: securing Canada’s compliance with its international human rights obligations and enhancing the responsiveness of state law to the global and multicultural context of Canadian society. However, actual jurisprudence suggests that the doctrine has helped undermine principles of respect for constitutional supremacy and respect for international law, in part because it does not contain clear, objective criteria governing what counts as a relevant and persuasive norm. In the absence of such criteria, “result-oriented” judges are free to instrumentally pick norms that help rationalize decisions made entirely on the basis of political and ideological factors. Some would go so far as to argue that the doctrine enables judges to use the rhetoric of human rights to constitutionally entrench relations of domination; there is some empirical evidence to support this claim. Given the increasingly global context of contemporary judicial decision-making, it is surprising that judges have not yet offered a convincing justification for the relevant and persuasive doctrine. This dissertation attempts to offer such a justification. Weaving together a wide range of legal and moral philosophy, argumentation theory and international law/international relations theory, the author hypothesizes that judicial decisions about the relevance and persuasiveness of international and comparative human rights follow the contours of rhetorical and dialogical processes distinctive to law. With a view to testing this hypothesis, he develops analytical frameworks that help observers rationally identify, construct and evaluate “persuasive” international and comparative human rights arguments. Using the court-led reconstitution of the Canadian security certificate regime as a case study, he then attempts to demonstrate how the relevant and persuasive doctrine operates, how it coheres with principles of respect for constitutional supremacy and international law, and how it can improve respect for human rights among a wide range of globally-situated discursive communities

Valuation and International Regulation of Forest Ecosystems: Propects for a Global Forest Agreement

Deforestation poses severe environmental problems for temperate and tropical regions world-wide. An international forest agreement is necessary to protect these forests. Previous international environmental agreements provide, at best, limited protection for endangered natural resources. To conserve the world\u27s forests, an effective forest agreement must recognize the economic value of forest ecosystems. This forest agreement should define a twofold rule of responsibility: that states have a duty to protect forests located within their borders, and that other states that benefit from forests have a legal obligation to share in conservation costs