From supranational to intertribal - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 49

The International Joint Commission: an arm of both
states
I do not anticipate that the time will ever come when this Commission will not be needed.
I think that as the two countries along this tremendous boundary become more and more
thickly settled the need for it will increase . . .
—Elihu Root, Secretary of State (1909)
(quoted by Munton, 1981)
The primary purpose of the IJC is to help prevent and resolve disputes relating to
the boundary and transboundary waters of Canada and the U.S. Under the BWT,
the IJC has administrative, quasi-judicial, arbitral, and investigative responsibilities.
The administration powers, detailed in Article VI, include activities such as directing
and measuring boundary waters (e.g. the St. Mary and Milk Rivers in Alberta and
Montana). The quasi-judicial powers found in Articles III, IV, and VII involve
reviewing applications and granting (or withholding) permission for projects that
would divert, use, or obstruct treaty waters (Willoughby, 1981, p. 24). Article X
outlines the arbitral powers relative to questions arising between Canada and the
U.S. However, it is important to note that these arbitral powers have never been
employed in the entire history of the BWT and the IJC. Article IX deals with
investigative powers affording the Commission the right to examine and make
recommendations on water issues along the boundary.
Although the mandate of the IJC is large, the actual number of commissioners
is modest. The IJC comprises six members, three appointed by the Governor in
Council in Canada and three by the President of the United States and confirmed
by the U.S. Senate. Administrative staff support the work of the Commission
in offices in Ottawa, Ontario, and Washington, DC A third office in Windsor,
Ontario was created by the governments when they signed the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA) in 1972 and gave the IJC management responsi-
bility. In addition, regional task forces and site-specific governing boards conduct
much of the work (as detailed below). This model of governance is framed as a
federal-federal model.
Understanding how the IJC inherently reinforces the nation-state is linked to
the initial framing set out by the Boundary Waters Treaty. Historically, the IJC
has addressed a small number of major disputes in a formal nation-to-nation setting.
The scope of the IJC is determined, in part, by the underlying premise that the
“authority over water in its own territory is absolute”. Thus, to ensure that the
IJC does not overstep its authority and become a form of “continental government,”
the IJC operates through a reference system (Holmes, 1981) - or formal request
by each country. Under this system, the IJC becomes involved in an issue only at
the request of both countries (the United States and Canada). The BWT does not
specify or require that both countries must agree on a reference, but all references
to date have been joint, and it is now generally accepted (for practical and
procedural reasons) that future ones will be as well (Clamen, 2013).
The key issue associated with this, however, is that the interpretation of
“nations” is binational and not multinational. If Indigenous nations want to make