AMN Plus– July 23, 2026
Claims that international law grants Egypt exclusive or permanent rights over the Nile do not reflect the principles that govern modern international water law.
Contemporary legal frameworks recognize that international rivers are shared resources, and all riparian states have both rights and responsibilities in their use.
Leading international water law scholar Professor Stephen C. McCaffrey argues that shared rivers are governed by the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, not by absolute territorial sovereignty or historical ownership. This principle forms the cornerstone of the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, developed by the UN International Law Commission. Under this framework, Egypt’s dependence on the Nile for agriculture, drinking water, and economic stability deserves recognition. Equally, Ethiopia’s right to pursue sustainable development must also be acknowledged, particularly as the Ethiopian highlands contribute the majority of the Blue Nile’s flow.
Equitable and reasonable utilization requires balancing a range of relevant factors, including geography, hydrology, population dependence, existing and potential water uses, socioeconomic needs, and the availability of alternative water resources.
As Professor McCaffrey explains, no state is guaranteed the indefinite continuation of historical patterns of water use if changing circumstances require a more balanced and equitable allocation. Likewise, no riparian state has the legal authority to prevent another from pursuing lawful development.
At the same time, international law recognizes the obligation to prevent significant harm to other riparian states. As noted by renowned water law expert Dr. Salman M. A. Salman, the principles of equitable utilization and the prevention of significant harm are complementary rather than competing. They are intended to be implemented through cooperation, consultation, information sharing, and negotiated solutions, not through unilateral claims.
The legal status of the Nile’s colonial-era agreements must also be viewed within the broader evolution of international law. The 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Agreement and the 1959 Egypt-Sudan Agreement were concluded without Ethiopia’s participation. Under the well-established treaty law principle of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt, which provides that treaties neither impose obligations nor confer rights upon third states without their consent, these agreements cannot automatically bind Ethiopia.
Modern international water law has increasingly moved away from exclusive reliance on historical allocations. Instead, it emphasizes basin-wide cooperation, sustainability, and equitable participation among all riparian countries.
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) illustrates why the Nile dispute cannot be resolved through claims of absolute legal entitlement by either side. Ethiopia maintains that GERD is a hydroelectric project designed to expand electricity access, promote economic development, and support regional energy integration. Meanwhile, Egypt’s concerns regarding downstream water security remain legitimate interests that deserve careful consideration.
International legal experts and organizations consistently emphasize that durable solutions for shared rivers are achieved through transparency, data sharing, joint planning, and good-faith negotiations, not through selective interpretations of international law. Ultimately, contemporary international law does not deliver complete victory to either Egypt or Ethiopia. Instead, it requires all riparian states to cooperate in pursuing an equitable balance between upstream development and downstream water security.
Ethiopia has consistently maintained that the future of the Nile should be guided by the universally recognized principles of equitable and reasonable utilization, prevention of significant harm, cooperation, and mutual benefit, the very principles that define modern international water law.
By Abebech Mekonnen
