consideration the views expressed in the committee and in the International Law Commission. The formula of a framework agreement supplemented by specific watercourse aqreements was preferable, despite its shortcomings, to all other possible alternatives. That dual approach was justifiable not because each watercourse had individual characteristics but because the political relationships I ... A/C.6/39/SR.39 English Page 13 (Mr. Al-Khasawneh, Jordan) and disposition to co-operate among riparian States varied greatly. It was therefore neither politically realistic nor leqally justified to presume, generally, that States would co-operate in the manaqement and utilization of watercourses since, in the last analysis, such a postulate rested on the elusive concept of good-neiqhbourly relations. 43. He noted with interest, in paraaraph 286 of the Commission's report, the Special Rapporteur's view that the framework agreement should contain basic leqal principles aenerally accepted with reaard to international watercourses but might also contain certain guidelines and recommendations which might be adaptable to specific watercourse aareements. In that way, when riparian States were disposed to act in co-operation, the guidelines contained in the framework agreement would make it possible to define the modalities for such co-operation, and when the riparian States were unable to agree, the framework agreement would delineate their rights and duties as clearly as possible and serve as a yardstick for appraisinq the activities of such States. 44. The distinction between what was mandatory and what recommendatory in the draft provisions should be brought out clearly. Thus, in article 4, paragraph 3, it was stated that watercourse States "shall negotiate in good faith" for the purpose of concluding one or more watercourse agreements or arrangements. It would in fact be preferable to use the formula "should neqotiate in good faith" to take account of the recommendatory nature of that provision. The Special Rapporteur and members of the International Law Commission would have no difficulty in identifyinq 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing the framework agreement for the management and utilization of international watercourses, which is a natural resource. The language used is legal and diplomatic, indicating that the text is focused on the international relations and cooperation among riparian states. The text does not mention economic development, agriculture, forestry, or fishing, which are often related to natural resources. It also does not mention industry, transport, communication, international trade, health, education, employment, humanitarian aid, or culture.

**Category**
Natural resources and environment