The Egyptian, Ethiopian and Sudanese leaders signed the agreement in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital. B. An agreement on the annual operating guidelines and guidelines of the Renaissance Dam, which owners can adapt from time to time. Egypt has strongly supported efforts by Ethiopia and other nations to increase prosperity, including through various projects in the Nile basin, he said. Although Cairo has launched and conducted painstaking negotiations on the dam to reach a fair and equitable agreement, these efforts “have not been successful,” he said. Indeed, during the negotiations, Egypt faced an unjustified campaign of unfounded claims that Cairo had tried to link the parties to agreements of the “dark era of colonialism,” he said, Pointing out that any treaty on the Nile concluded with Ethiopia was signed by his government and as an independent state, including a treaty in 1902 involving the Emperor of Abyssinian that prohibits the construction of water works on the Nile that would affect the natural flow of The river. However, this depends on cooperation between the three parties and non-cooperation could not lead to agreement on the guidelines and rules of the first occupation of GERD. Finally, an “agreement” on the guidelines and rules is never the conclusion of a treaty that Egypt is crying out for. The DoP does not have a definition in this area and the agreement is not necessarily a CBA contract under international contract law. It is Egypt that is accused of not cooperating in this regard, and it is Egypt that is relentlessly calling for the conclusion of a contract for the occupation and exploitation of GERD. The Egyptian requirement for a treaty therefore does not come within the scope of the DoP, as the DoP requires only a simple agreement in a spirit of cooperation. But cooperation becomes impossible because of Egypt`s obstructionism and intransigence.

A fortiori, the conclusion of a contract that results in a simple filling agreement cannot be possible without cooperation. This gives Ethiopia the exclusive mandate to fill the dam at its own stop. Therefore, no case or conflict can be identified on the basis of the DoP by considering this agreement as a treaty that respects rights and imposes obligations on Egypt and Sudan on the one hand. Ethiopia therefore does not violate any obligation under international law by starting to occupy gerD without reaching an agreement with the downstream countries. Neither the DoP nor any other international law imposes such an obligation on Ethiopia. In addition, the filling and operation of the Ethiopian dam has no factual and legal disputes. If there is a dispute, it is over the use of the Nile, which can only be resolved by the entry into force of the CFA.