Comparative Study of Helmand Border River Water Utilization with the Basic Principles of the 1997 UN Convention

The operation and ownership of border rivers is a contentious issue for many governments. Exploitation of the Helmand River is one of the legal issues between Iran and Afghanistan since the signing of the 1857 Paris Agreement. This study was conducted with the aim of comparative study of the legal situation of the Helmand River water exploitation with the basic principles of the 1997 Convention. It is a descriptive-analytical method that has been extracted by studying the documents and texts of the 1997 UN Convention and the Iran-Afghanistan Treaty on Helmand Water (1973) and its protocols No. 1 and 2, and then by analytical comparison of the provisions of these documents and the strengths and weaknesses of them are addressed. The findings show that the fundamental norms contained in the 1997 Convention exist in the water relations of Iran and Afghanistan, and it is necessary to follow the global norms for the optimal use of the common Helmand River in order to solve the remaining problems. The results of the present study indicate that Iran has supported the fair operation of each state participating in the common waterways and has shared water with its neighbors accordingly. Theoretically, Iran has applied the doctrine of limited territorial sovereignty and, as an upstream or downstream government, has recognized the right of its neighbors to exploit shared water resources. The principle of non-discrimination and commitment to consultation and exchange of information, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the manner of this settlement, the preservation of the environment and the establishment of a permanent body for water management are enshrined in Iran's border agreement with the Government of Afghanistan and in accordance with the 1997 UN Convention