English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

South Sudan’s independence has raised the number of Nile riparian states to eleven, and the questions of state succession and international law discourse on the issue are expected to arise in relation to South Sudan. Some of the international legal issues that may be raised in relation to Nile agreements are: whether the new state of South Sudan (in its utilization of the Nile waters) is under an international legal obligation to respect and honor the 1929 and 1959 Nile agreements made by Sudan with Egypt. The article addresses this issue in light of the law of state succession to treaties. Based on several theories of international law relating to state succession with respect to treaties, I argue that South Sudan is not bound by the 1929 and 1959 Nile waters agreements. More specifically, it is argued that the 1929 and 1959 agreements between Egypt and Sudan governing trans-boundary water resources do not fall within the boundary exceptional clause, and South Sudan can nullify the agreements at any time. Key terms South Sudan; State Succession; 1929 and 1959 Nile Water Agreements; International Water Transboundary Obligations; International Water Law

State Succession in International Transboundary Water Obligations: South Sudan and the Nile Water Agreements