Solidarity and community interests in international environmental and natural resources law
Loading...
Date
2025-06-05
Authors
McIntyre, Owen
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Published Version
Abstract
The existence of an international community of states, requiring institutionalised cooperation based on solidarity, is evident in several fields of international law, including economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights and disaster risk governance. International water law, however, employs a pervasive solidarity-based notion of community interest, which is given effect by means of a general duty of institutionalised cooperation. This sub-field, in which the interdependence of watercourse states is immediately apparent, has long embraced a ‘community of interest’ approach to transboundary water cooperation, which informs every aspect of the cardinal principle of equitable and reasonable utilisation, which is itself characterised by a deeply distributive conception of equity. Sustainable and optimal utilisation of shared freshwaters requires moderation of uncompromising ideas of territorial sovereignty, upon which states’ water-related entitlements have traditionally been founded. Solidarity amongst a community of watercourse states, based upon their substantive sovereign equality, regardless of their respective circumstances, plays a key role. It permeates international water law through, inter alia, a distributive conception of equity and the differentiation evident in expected standards of state conduct. Solidarity can shape cooperative transboundary water management, whereby the focus shifts from competing national interests to attaining optimised common benefits.
Description
Keywords
Solidarity , Community of interest , International watercourses law , Differentiation , Distributive equity , Transboundary water co-operation
Citation
McIntyre, O. (2025) 'Solidarity and community interests in international environmental and natural resources law', Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 43(4), pp. 633–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2025.2503637