International Comparative Framework for Transjurisdictional Water Pollution Legislation

摘要

In most developed countries, transjurisdictional pollution does not, in general, lead to major disputes. In large measure this results from clarity in the law, lack of institutional ' competition , rigorous application of the law, identified dispute settlement mechanisms, and public accountability of local officials. In cases such as USA, Canada and Australia, water quality objectives or standards are specified at transjurisdictional boundaries and are coordinated within the framework of a basin - wide management approach but implemented according to existing environmental laws. For international basins subject to bi - or multilateral agreements, pollution is managed under the framework of local laws and the basin Agreement. There are several types of river basin organizations however in almost all cases these are representative of the basin stakeholders. River basin organizations sometimes have some operational role (e.g. hydraulic operations, flood control and management) but normally do not exercise authorities that are within the competence of local authorities except where these are weak or ineffective. Generally, domestic river basin organizations in western countries have legal status as organizations, but do not have specific laws which grant them special powers. Powers exercised by RBOs are almost always granted through the mechanism of the Agreement under which the stakeholders agree to participate in river management via the RBO.