text: reasonable resolution of any conflict between uses by weighing uses against one other in accordance with articles 6 and 7. Some members, however, favoured the inclusion therein of a reference to the obligation not to cause appreciable harm set forth in article 8. 265. One member, while agreeing with the principle enunciated in paragraph 1, felt that the provision in paragraph 2 went beyond the scope of the draft and, indeed, beyond that of the Commission's competence. In his view, there was no point in the article as a whole other than an obvious one, namely that States themselves determined their uses of watercourses, taking into account the interests of optimum utilisation and relevant factors, not least their own geographical situations with respect to the watercourse. 266. In s&using up, the Special Rapporteur explained that he had attempted in article 24 to strike a fair balance between the various considerations at issue and that it appeared from the debate that he had succeeded in so doing. He added that the constructive drafting observations which had been made during the debate would be duly taken into consideration. - 118 -iAzLh28. m0f-v3l2iY 267. The article reaoived broad support on the ground.! that regulation wae essential or even vital for the manifold uses made of watercourses today. It was suggested that the term “regulation” should be defined either in article 1 (use of terms) or in the article itself. 268. Two members believed, however, that the article WLIS unnecessary since a general obligation of co-operation to “attain optimum utilisation and adequate protection of an international watercourse” was already laid down in ort.icle 9.The question was further asked why the application of the concept of equitable cost-aharing should be limjtod to the field of regulation. 269. As regards m-h& the approach reflected therein, whereby
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the regulation of international watercourses, including the balancing of various uses and interests, and the concept of equitable cost-sharing. It seems to be focused on the management of natural resources and the environment, with implications for economic development and human well-being.