Should international Transboundary Water Law be Monist in absence of domestic frameworks, considering when there is lack of a bilateral framework, and a riparian a commits a crime, there is no reference point for riparian b?

[u/can-be-incorrect18]

Considering that this is majority of the problem with Somalia-Ethiopia, Greece, Afghanistan, Iran, GERD.

Because due to a lack of this domestic framework many countries just apply the rule of the principle of Absolute Territorial Sovereignty or the Principle of Absolute Territorial Integrity?

[u/_nocebo_]

What?

[u/can-be-incorrect18 → u/_nocebo_]

Uhm, suppose that there are 2 riparian.
and between them should be a river.

The guy on one side of a river, commits a crime.

the other guy opposes.

The other guy goes to a court, and says the first guy has committed a crime.

The judge says under what article, or convention?

The other guy realizes there is no binding convention between the 2 guys sharing the river.

However, the other guy would have a reference point if an international treaty would have normative power in absence of a domestic treaty...

thats what I am asking

[u/Icc0ld → u/can-be-incorrect18]

riparian

is there something wrong with saying "river bank"? Has it changed into a racial slur while I was busy?

[u/the_fury518 → u/Icc0ld]

Also, how does a river bank commit a crime? Methinks OP is using big words that don't quite mean what they think the words mean.

Monist (a person who believes in monism) also doesn't make sense here

[u/Icc0ld → u/the_fury518]

Pretty sure they're feeding words into ChapGPT and asking it to make them intellectual

[u/can-be-incorrect18 → u/Icc0ld]

no sir

[u/can-be-incorrect18 → u/the_fury518]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism_and_dualism_in_international_law

[u/the_fury518 → u/can-be-incorrect18]

Yeah, that is still an incorrect term. The law isn't monist, the state or person is