Diplomatic row breaks out between SouthSudan & Ethiopia

[ሕጊ።።]

You should know that a destabilized Somalia is Ethiopia's top priority. If Somalia makes a comeback, it will quickly try to annex Ogaden which has a lot of oil. So weakening Somalia by cutting the Shabelle river does not sound impossible in all honesty.

The Shabelle river makes no difference to the stability of Somalia. If a dam does not get constructed it doesn't mean all internal conflict in Somalia will come to a halt.
First it's ha-ha Ethiopia is landlocked, second it's oh no they can't use what they have in-land too........

No point predicting the future.

 

[DeathWish]

The Shabelle river makes no difference to the stability of Somalia. If a dam does not get constructed it doesn't mean all internal conflict in Somalia will come to a halt.
First it's ha-ha Ethiopia is landlocked, second it's oh no they can't use what they have in-land too........

No point predicting the future.

The TPLF regime will lose its power if it does not begin to share it with the other ethnicities. Some say there is a c1v1l w@r currently in Ethiopia because of this oppressive regime. Egypt, South Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea are all enemies of this regime. So if a civil w@r begins, all those countries will begin taking as much land and resources they can. TPLF must begin sharing its power or it will not have any!!

 

[ሕጊ።።]

The TPLF regime will lose its power if it does not begin to share it with the other ethnicities. Some say there is a c1v1l w@r currently in Ethiopia because of this oppressive regime. Egypt, South Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea are all enemies of this regime. So if a civil w@r begins, all those countries will begin taking as much land and resources they can. TPLF must begin sharing its power or it will not have any!!

Obviously, I am not denying that, it is an ethnocentric regime.
The relations with Egypt are not as bad as you are implying, they will eventually have to go along with this dam. Relations with Eritrea will always be a hassle regardless who is leading Ethiopia. And the rumours with South Sudan was false, https://apnews.com/c018e5ca3389489f906f50c432988751 as both countries have denied so you can take that out of your list.

You might want a civil war to start but that is not happening any time soon. The solution for everything to you seems to be war lol, which only takes things back another step.

 

[Canuck]

Rivers are international water basins and are not owned by countries.
Literature Review for International River Basins

International Rivers

According to a study carried out by a group of scientist (Wolf et al., 1999), the number of international river basins in the world were identified to be 261, covering 45.3% of the world land area excluding Antarctica. In terms of land area within international basins, Africa has the greatest percentage of all, 62%. Five of the world’s eight rivers that pass through eight or more countries are in Africa (ibid.).

International Legal Perspectives on International River Basins

The Application of Different Theories in International Water Law

The various uses to which the shared waters of international river basins are put create problems of both technical and juridical nature (Godana, 1985). Traditionally, international water law recognizes five main theories (Utton and Teclaff, 1978) that attempt to define and delineate the rights of basin states to use water from a shared river system. These are:

The theory of absolute territorial sovereignty. According to this theory, a state, as ‘master of its territory’, may adopt in regard to watercourse within its national territory all measures deemed suitable to its national interest, irrespective of their effects beyond its borders (Menon, 1975). In other words, a state can do as it pleases and is entitled to do as it chooses with its waters within boundaries ignoring the effects of its actions on neighboring states. Obviously, this theory is favorable to upper basin state. Downstream states have always opposed the absolute territorial sovereignty doctrine, which is never implemented in any water treaty.

The theory of absolute territorial integrity. This theory, which is also known as the theory of natural flow of river, is the direct opposite of that of absolute territorial sovereignty. It espouses the old common law doctrine of water rights whereby a lower riparian (basin state) claims the right to the continued, uninterrupted (or natural) flow and unaltered condition of the water from the territory of the upper riparian state (Godana, 1985). According to this theory, a riparian state may not proceed with the harnessing of a section of an international waterway traversing its territory if it is of a nature to cause injury to the interests of other basin States. This theory is thus favourable to the lower-basin state(s) and awards ‘a veritable right of veto to downstream states’ (ibid).

The theory limited territorial sovereignty and of limited territorial integrity. These theories are in practice complementary and even identical. Therefore they can be considered together. They consist in the assertion that every state is free to use the waters flowing on its territory, on condition that such utilization in no way prejudices the territory or interests of other states. Permiting use of rivers as far as no harm is done to other riparian States; these theories are where the concept of reasonable use originated. In an attempt to advance and improve on the doctrine of limited territorial sovereignty and integrity, this theory insists on a ‘community approach’. This approach suggests that all basin states have a common interest in developing the basin (ibid.). Under this theory, state boundaries should be ignored and drainage basin is regarded as an economic and geographic unit. This doctrine represents a more balanced approach that seeks to contribute to the joint development of riparian states within a shared basin through equitable division and sharing of benefits.

Each of these theories reflect different historical and judicial approaches to solving the problems experienced by riparian States (ILA, 1966; ILC, 1994) and also reflect an important change from rights to ownership of water, to one which strives to ensure that the interests of all parties are met equitably and effeciently. As international law as an instrument of regulations on the transboundary freshwater issues is at present inconclusive and weak (Naff, 1993). Management of international river basins might be possible only if the affected and concerned countries accept the limitation to their sovereignty over the common water resources. It requires mutual agreement to define this limitation. This is, of course, the obstacle, which can hinder the development of a partnership between the riparian states.

Law is an instrument that can be used to smooth out conflicts of interest generated, for instance, in the sharing of water resources. However, the utilization and management of shared river is subject not only to man-made laws but also the natural laws, which does not recognize the political and geographical boundaries. In order to form a framework for cooperation, States sharing water need first to settle their inter-State dispute over the water in question on a legal basis. The absence of formal political agreements contributes to this problem. On the other hand, since each river basin is unique, with its own economic, geographical, ecological and political variables, no comprehensive system of rigid rules can anticipate adequately the variations from one basin to another.

Settlements of Disputes and Conflict Resolutions

When countries disagree over the way in which water resources of an international river basin should be utilized, they have to resort to some disputes settlement procedures. So, before parties or countries sharing water system go into a conflict, which may from water security problem lead to a national security problem (Carlson, 1999), there are three main procedures and methods used to find a solution to the problem. These are (1) negotiation and consultation; (2) mediation and conciliation; and (3) arbitration and adjudication. Dispute over shared water bodies can normally arise at least under two different circumstances, one can be riparian states that have never entered a treaty or agreement, while the other can be an existing agreement which can not provide a binding decision to problem in dispute.

 

[Canuck]

Water is right for everyone and country can hold the water from other country.
Rights and responsibilities for up-and downstrean riparians
in an international river system in terms of UN Convention.

In terms of the
UN Convention
Riparian Position in the River Basin
Upstream Riparian ----------- Downstream Riparian

Rights Equitable & Reasonable Utilization. Not to be harmed.
Responsibilities Cause No-harm Allow equitable and reasonable Utilization.
The above table illustrates the controversy between the two most important articles of the UN Convention based on (i) the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, and (ii) the obligation no to cause significant harm. As shown in the table, each state in any given river basin – whether upper or lower riparian – has both rights and responsibilities in terms of the UN Convention. The upstream riparian has the rights to equitable and reasonable use of the shared waters, while the downstream riparian have the responsibility to allow the common waters to be equitably shared. On the other hand, upstream riparian States are responsible for and obliged not to cause significant harm, while the downstream riparian States have the rights not to be significantly harmed. As it is unlikely that both can be achieved at the same time without problems, this proofs to be a real dilemma in water sharing rules and allocation. However, it is obvious to note that any expanded or additional activities of water resources developments seem to be harmful to lower States, particularly in the arid and semi-arid regions, where water is naturally and increasingly becoming scarce. So, although the idea that ‘rights’ should accompanied by ‘obligation’ gained acceptance, the UN Convention does not define any principles as being more superior and important than the other in the case of dispute over the utilization of the international watercourses. This analysis is easily applicable to the Juba and Shabelle river basins in the Horn of Africa.

Since the international water law that could solve the problem in legal terms still remains vague and uncertain, and many concepts and principles remain also unsettled (Caflisch, 1998), the allocation of the water resources in international shared river basins is increasingly becoming a major global challenge. The definition of the concepts, which are intentionally vague, guarantee continued ambiguity in the principles of customary law (Wolf, 1999). And there is some doubts raised over the viability of the UN Convention (Caflisch, 1998). The principle of "reasonable and equitable utilisation" embodied in Article 5 of the UN Convention is somewhat vaguely worded, provides little guidance in this regard and is prone to subjective interpretations (van der Zaag et al., 2000). Another author (Gleick, 1998) argues that the principles set forth in the UN Convention are not binding and offer little concrete guidance to the problem of allocation of water resources in international river basins. It is therefore doubtful whether the UN Convention will ever become truly operational (Caflisch, 1998). It therefore seems impossible to form an institutional framework or arrangement that could serve the purpose of implementing the UN Convention because it is wide and vague. Many countries’ governments are finding the Convention either too strong (upstream) or too weak (downstream). Utilization of shared water resources should not be only equitable but also sustainable. So, one must combine and harmonize the two concepts “Equitable Use and Sustainable Development”.[3]

There is no formally ratified rule of international water law. UN Convention is not yet operational, because the required number of countries did not yet ratify it. The UN Convention was open for signature until 21 May 2000 and requires ratification by 35 States to enter into force and effect. Only sixteen countries have signed the UN Convention and about half of them ratified it (Salman, 2001). The reluctance of the Member States to sign and ratify the Convention could be linked to the “no significant harm” component – and its relation to the equitable and reasonable utilization component. It may also be linked to what would be the impact of the UN Convention on existing as well as future international watercourse agreements. The most important concern of the UN Convention in its future is therefore the ratification by the UN member States.

It is therefore safe to say hat this new legal instrument is too weak to meditate disputing basin states over shared water resources, such as those in the Horn of Africa sharing the Juba and Shabelle river systems where dispute has been experienced in the past and further dispute potentially exist.

 

[Canuck]

The TPLF regime will lose its power if it does not begin to share it with the other ethnicities. Some say there is a c1v1l w@r currently in Ethiopia because of this oppressive regime. Egypt, South Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea are all enemies of this regime. So if a civil w@r begins, all those countries will begin taking as much land and resources they can. TPLF must begin sharing its power or it will not have any!!

Don't listen to him, already the civil war had started in Ethiopia

 

[DeathWish]

Obviously, I am not denying that, it is an ethnocentric regime.
The relations with Egypt are not as bad as you are implying, they will eventually have to go along with this dam. Relations with Eritrea will always be a hassle regardless who is leading Ethiopia. And the rumours with South Sudan was false, https://apnews.com/c018e5ca3389489f906f50c432988751 as both countries have denied so you can take that out of your list.

You might want a civil war to start but that is not happening any time soon. The solution for everything to you seems to be war lol, which only takes things back another step.

I don't want a civil war, I don't like the TPLF but that does not mean I want innocent people to be dragged into something that can be avoided.
That is why I am saying if they don't change things up in Ethiopia, tensions between the many ethnicities will definitely rise. Most of the countries that border Ethiopia have animosity towards it. So if your country continues down this path, it will be easy for a foreign country to spark a civil war by funding r3bel groups.

 

[ሕጊ።።]

There is no formally ratified rule of international water law.

 

[ሕጊ።።]

Don't listen to him, already the civil war had started in Ethiopia

GonderTime, the newly created Twitter account during the Wolkait struggle

Go to bed, you are clearly a Google warrior.

 

[Canuck]

GonderTime– ‏@GonderTime
Come visit #Ethiopia.

 

[waraabe]

Are you amxaaro or Tigray or Oromo

 

[ሕጊ።።]

I don't want a civil war, I don't like the TPLF but that does not mean I want innocent people to be dragged into something that can be avoided.
That is why I am saying if they don't change things up in Ethiopia, tensions between the many ethnicities will definitely rise. Most of the countries that border Ethiopia have animosity towards it. So if your country continues down this path, it will be easy for a foreign country to spark a civil war by funding r3bel groups.

Some people, like the Google warrior spamming this thread now do wish for things like this to happen.

And to what you said, I hope things change too and diplomatic relations stay normal.

 

[ሕጊ።።]

Are you amxaaro or Tigray or Oromo

Tigrayan eryday

 

[Canuck]

#Tplf special unit solders dead bodies left fot the hyenas to eat for super since no one is coming to take the bodies.#Ethiopia #Eritrea

 

[Canuck]

Some people, like the Google warrior spamming this thread now do wish for things like this to happen.

And to what you said, I hope things change too and diplomatic relations stay normal.

If you can't handle the heat then leave kitchen after all it is somalispot and my thread midget.

 

[ሕጊ።።]

If you can't handle the heat then leave kitchen after all it is somalispot and my thread midget.

Your thread became BS when South Sudan and Ethiopia both denied the rumour .
All that typing for no reason.

 

[Canuck]

Your thread became BS when South Sudan and Ethiopia both denied the rumour .
All that typing for no reason.

Whatever

 

[waraabe]

Tigrayan eryday

Interesting, u guys have nice females

 

[ሕጊ።።]

Interesting, u guys have nice females

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Inquisitive_]

Interesting, u guys have nice females

This has to be the contender for the biggest cock-sucking inferior post in the whole of Somalispot, what a shameless begging bowl carrying piglet you are.