{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022549019607843137, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00196078431372549, 'mean_word_length': 5.225609756097561, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mediation, Conciliation and Adjudication in the Settlement of International Drainage Basin Disputes

When States Disagree about the way in which the waters of an international drainage basin should be utilized, they should try first to resolve their differences by consultation and negotiation. This is what they usually do and, for the most part, do successfully. Sometimes, however, their negotiations do not lead to agreement. They then face the question whether or not they should involve the aid of third-parties in resolving their problem. In the words of Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, must they “seek a solution by … mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice”? It is proposed to examine here the obligation of states to resort to mediation, conciliation and adjudication when they cannot otherwise settle a dispute about the development of an international drainage basin that they share.