Abstract
These comments deal only with the Brooks–Trottier proposals for the formulation of an Israel–Palestine peace agreement on water. It is felt that their proposal of breaking with conventional approaches in the allocation of water in the frame work of the Israel–Palestine peace agreement with specific volumes or percentages of the shared water resources going to Party A and to Party B will be unacceptable to the parties and will prevent the parties to the agreement from knowing at the signing of the peace agreement how much their water resources have been increased and or how much their resources will be reduced. Such matters are vital to each partner and must be settled at the political level. Their proposal to choose an ongoing management process that will empower an untried and almost independent Bilateral Water Commission to allocate and reallocate water between the partners over time will be unworkable and lead to endless disputes disagreements and appeals which could deadlock the process. These issues should be settled at the political level as part of the final status peace agreement.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
