River Dispute Research Articles

A legal analysis of historic waters under international law: Nile river dispute between Ethiopia and other riparian countries mainly Egypt

A legal analysis of historic waters under international law: Nile river dispute between Ethiopia and other riparian countries mainly Egypt

Sharing Water Across Borders: Assessing the Hydro-Diplomacy Process in the Resolution of Indus River Disputes

Hydro-diplomacy addresses the political aspects of transnational water systems that aims to prevent, lessen, and settle disputes over shared water systems through water governance frameworks. The Indo-Pakistan dispute over the Indus River proves the importance of diplomacy in addressing water related issues. Using a qualitative and descriptive-explorative method, this research aims to explore mechanisms of the Indus River dispute resolutions within the framework of the hydro-diplomacy concept. The paper uses secondary data consisting of journal articles, books, and official documents . This research finds that the Indus River dispute resolution mechanism encompasses the key aspects of hydro-diplomacy, which are: 1) the political means through bilateral meetings and the Indus Water Treaty formulation; 2) preventive means through dispute resolution mechanism in the treaty; 3) integrative means towards the involvement of numerous stakeholders; 4) cooperative aspect through IWT agreements; and 5)technical means through data-sharing practices.

Re-negotiating the Cauvery River Water Dispute in Changing Geopolitics and Ecological Era

For hundreds of years, conflicts in water sharing have existed all around the globe. Cauvery River, in the southern part of India, has been in the midst of such conflict for the last 130 years. The Cauvery conflict between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka resurfaces whenever there's a shortfall in the Southwest Monsoon in the region. Historically, the conflict has been about the right to use water and the states/provinces in conflict have used the water from the river for agricultural purposes. Due to industrialization in the late 1980s and increasing population, water availability in the region has become stressed. The paper is an attempt to analyse the history and recent issue of Cauvery river water dispute. The paper also highlight the climate change that exacerbated the region’s water availability issues. Faltering rainfall has caused unrest in the region, and the traditional methods of water sharing are dwindling under political pressure. The purpose of this paper is to suggest the solution to Cauvery river dispute lies in effective water conservation strategy. Without a climate change strategy, the governments of these states will never be able to solve this complex issue at hand. Here's an in-depth study of historical, political and ecological aspects of this dispute.

Development Challenges in Egypt: Constraints, Practices, and Opportunities

This paper analyzes the constraints, practices, and opportunities of Egypt’s development. Egypt experienced economic stagnation under the regime of President Hosni Mubarak which was exacerbated by the political situation that resulted from its end. Egypt’s economic efforts stalled and it was not until the end of the power struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian Army, during the counterrevolutionary period, that political normalcy returned to the extent needed to focus on improvements of the domestic economic situation. This phase resulted in the election of President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi whose policies fought back against terrorism and initiated successful developmental efforts to address developmental constraints. These initiatives range from diplomatic efforts to solve the Nile River dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia, building roads and bridges, encouraging foreign investment, and increasing the supply of electricity. There is still a long way to go in terms of building various industries, increasing exports, lowering unemployment rates, and encouraging tourism as an important source of income and also a vital means of obtaining foreign currency. Successful development efforts in Egypt will allow for increased levels of self-sufficiency regarding agriculture and water as well as broader levels of prosperity across other sectors of production.

Water Wars on South America’s Pacific Coast

Abstract: After the War of the Pacific (1879–1883), the Silala Basin, arguably one of the most hydropolitically vulnerable basins in the world, became a shared resource of Bolivia and Chile. A related issue involved the shared resources of the Lauca River, which rises in Chile before emptying into a salty basin in Bolivia. Over the decades, Bolivia and Chile unsuccessfully explored tying the Lauca and Silala disputes to Bolivia’s quest for a sovereign Pacific port. The Mauri River dispute between Bolivia and Peru is a third unresolved issue involving shared water resources in South America. All three disputes have impacted the creation and implementation of foreign policy in Bolivia, Chile, and Peru for more than a century. Despite the International Court of Justice’s rulings on two of these disputes, they continue to impact domestic and foreign policies in the region.

Análisis del conflicto del agua: la disputa del río Nilo

La cuenca del río Nilo es la fuente de vida de Egipto, Etiopía, Sudán y los países río arriba, principalmente como agua para la agricultura y la energía hidroeléctrica. El recurso es el centro de un desarrollo muy disputado entre los países río abajo y río arriba. En los últimos años, debido en gran parte al cambio climático y al rápido crecimiento de la población, se ha producido un aumento en el nivel del conflicto relacionado con la escasez de agua y el subsecuente agravamiento de la inseguridad alimentaria. Además, las masas de agua transfronterizas tienen una gestión hídrica aún más compleja, convirtiéndose en uno de los principales temas geopolíticos de la actualidad. Este conflicto es el resultado de la ambición de los principales países ribereños, en particular Egipto, Sudán, Etiopía y otras naciones río arriba, por reclamar una mayor parte de los suministros de agua disponibles en la cuenca. Precisamente por eso, una teoría del juego cooperativo proporciona información valiosa sobre las disputas estratégicas en relación con los recursos hídricos. En este artículo, se evalúan las estrategias no cooperativas para determinar los posibles resultados de la disputa.

Rethinking the Robe River dispute 1986-7 – de-unionisation in Australia’s Pilbara iron ore industry in the early neoliberal period

ABSTRACT The Robe River dispute of 1986-7 was the anti-union New Right’s first attempt to defeat union power at a large workforce in Australia. This occurred during an industrial relations period of ‘cooperation’ between unions, employers and government under Australia’s social contract – the Accord. The dispute was also the first successful attack of its kind in Western Australia’s highly strike-prone Pilbara iron ore industry. Despite its subsequent victory, Robe River management was in a weak position during the dispute, and successful industrial action was a viable prospect. Unionists at the Robe River company were the most militant in the industry. Yet after a six-month dispute, union power was no longer. This article argues union officials’ strategy of avoiding industrial action at all costs led to defeat. This strategy was adopted in the context of firstly, the social contract promising peace between unions and employers, secondly, the Pilbara industrial relations environment of strong localised grassroots networks of union power, conflict with metropolitan-based union officials, and worker encroachment on managerial prerogative, and thirdly, the contingent conservatism of the trade union bureaucracy. Union power in the Pilbara had underlying political weaknesses, meaning that an alternative strategy to that adopted by the union bureaucracy did not win out.

Metagame analysis of Cauvery River dispute incorporating interannual variability in virgin runoff potential of the basin

Metagame analysis of Cauvery River dispute incorporating interannual variability in virgin runoff potential of the basin

Strategic Insights into the Cauvery River Dispute in India

For hundreds of years, conflicts in water sharing have existed all around the globe. Cauvery River, in the southern part of India, has been in the midst of such conflict for the last 130 years. Historically, the conflict has been about the right to use water and the states/provinces in conflict have used the water from the river for agricultural purposes. Due to industrialization in the late 1980s and increasing population, water availability in the region has become stressed. Climate change has exacerbated the region’s water availability issues. Faltering rainfall has caused unrest in the region, and the traditional methods of water sharing are dwindling under political pressure. Without a climate change strategy, the governments of these states will never be able to solve this complex issue at hand. The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) is applied to understand the nuances of this conflict. It models the preferences of the decision-makers (the states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) and the common option (goal) they can reach to potentially solve the conflict. Fuzzy preferences along with option prioritization is also applied to this conflict in order to account for the uncertainties in the decision-makers’ preferences. The purpose of this paper is to nudge decision-makers in a productive direction to overcome the long-impending political standoff, while introducing a new methodology of looking into this old conflict.

State building, nation making and post-colonial hydropolitics in India and Israel: Visible and hidden forms of violence at multiple scales

This article shows how both state building and nation making processes have intensified the sense of national appropriation of water and how water bodies, landscapes, and infrastructures became an integral part of national identity during the early post-colonial hydropolitics era (1948–67). Drawing on the cases of India and Israel, it shows conceptually, discursively, and empirically how these two distinguishable but interrelated processes lead to conflict and visible and hidden forms of violence at multiple scales. Water bodies, infrastructures, and landscapes are used on the one hand as attempts to homogenise the state space and on the other to downplay other forms of identities. In short, these processes help to understand hydraulic imaginaries, state power, identity politics and infrastructural transformations linked to post-colonial hydropolitics and its associated violence in the histories of the Jordan River and Indus River disputes.

Swimming Against the Current: Revisiting the Principles of International Water Law in the Resolution of Fresh Water Disputes

Demands for fresh water are rising around the world, its availability is increasingly unpredictable, and it is unequally distributed across political boundaries. As a result, disputes between states over the use of shared fresh water resources are increasingly likely to arise. This Article addresses the need to resolve these disputes peacefully and the ability of international water law to facilitate such resolution. Specifically, the Article proposes a reconfiguration of the two core principles of international water law — “equitable and reasonable utilization” and “no significant harm.” The former principle suggests that states sharing fresh water resources should do so in a manner that is fair and equitable, while the latter suggests that they must do so in a manner that avoids or minimizes significant harm. The Article traces the evolution of these principles and examines their conceptual underpinnings. It observes that the relationship between the two principles remains unsettled and they may therefore frustrate, rather than facilitate, the resolution of interstate fresh water disputes. The Article proceeds to challenge the most commonly held views in the international water law literature regarding the interrelationship and application of these principles. One such view contends that “equitable and reasonable utilization” should be the governing principle of international water law and treats harm as merely one factor to consider in any given use of shared fresh water. Another view asserts that the two principles complement each other and should be applied in tandem. In contrast, this Article argues that “no significant harm” is the superior principle, both in theory and in practice, and should therefore guide the resolution of interstate fresh water disputes. From a theoretical standpoint, the Article explains how the due diligence standard of the “no significant harm” principle and its reciprocal goal of harm prevention enable it to balance states’ competing interests in the use of shared fresh water resources. The Article then examines the actual use of both principles in previous interstate fresh water disputes submitted to arbitration and judicial settlement. Its findings lend further support to the proposition that, notwithstanding the visceral appeal of “equitable and reasonable utilization,” states should use the “no significant harm” principle to guide the resolution of their fresh water disputes. The Article concludes with the application of “no significant harm” as a guiding principle to the ongoing Nile River dispute between Ethiopia and Egypt.

The Ganges River Negotiation: Idealism of Regional Cooperation or Pragmatic Bilateralism

Negotiations between neighbours over river disputes are not only about water, they come embedded with other bilateral concerns. Thus, the solution of a river dispute depends on comparative bargaining capabilities of riparians on their many other contentious matters. This assumption has been applied in investigating and analysing the Ganges River negotiation between India and Bangladesh. The literature on the Ganges has focussed on integrated river development perspectives. The present analysis underlines the convergence of water with other bilateral concerns. The examination of a quarter-century negotiation on the Ganges confirms the correlation between positive outcomes and better linkages between multiple issues.

Inter-State Fresh Water Dispute Resolution: Some Reflections on River Basin Organizations as Arbitral Institutions

Over 330 fresh water-related disputes have been recorded between 1900 and 2017, many concerning resources that cross state boundaries.1 These inter-state fresh water disputes tend to involve complex legal, political, and scientific issues and, left unresolved, may deteriorate to violent conflict. Such deterioration has occurred in the case of the Jordan River dispute between Syria and Israel, the Senegal River dispute between Mauritania and Senegal, the Nile River dispute between Egypt and Sudan, and the Euphrates-Tigris River dispute between Turkey and Syria, to name just a few.2 The fact that fresh water resources are increasingly under stress while human dependency on them continues to grow suggests that disputes between states over such resources will likely continue to arise in the future.3 Yet ‘[s]cholars on water cooperation have paid insufficient attention to the significance of conflict resolution to effective transboundary water management.’4 In order to facilitate such resolution, Article 33 of the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (Watercourses Convention)5 provides states with a variety of dispute resolution mechanisms, both non-binding and binding.6 Non-binding mechanisms, which tend to be used most frequently by states, include bilateral negotiation, mediation,7 good offices,8 conciliation,9 and fact-finding.10 However, these mechanisms are not always successful in resolving inter-state fresh water disputes.11 Disputing states suffer from ‘imperfect knowledge of the functioning of [their shared fresh water] systems,’ limited data, ‘assumptions as a substitute for knowledge and data,’ and the general subjectivity of hydrological observations,12 all of which limit the prospects of bilateral negotiations providing an effective and lasting solution to inter-state fresh water disputes. Indeed, ‘working out their troubles on their own or shaking hands and getting along may work occasionally, but most of the time the conflict will only be sent underground to resurface later in more destructive ways.’13 Efforts to use mediation, good offices, and conciliation in the resolution of inter-state fresh water disputes have had mixed results. Some were successfully resolved—for instance, the World Bank’s mediation in the Indus waters dispute between India and Pakistan, which led to the signing of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.14 In other disputes, however, such as the Jordan River dispute between Israel and its neighbours, mediation attempts have failed.15 Fact-finding, while explicitly set out in some detail in the Watercourses Convention, has not been frequently used by states for the resolution of fresh water disputes.16

Sharing Water from Transboundary Rivers: Limits on State Power

Disputes between States of Australia over the sharing of the waters of rivers that flow through or form the boundary between two or more States (‘transboundary rivers’) have frequently been framed in terms of the ‘rights’ of the States. This article seeks to reframe the resolution of these disputes in terms of limits on State legislative and executive power. After reframing the problem in this way, the article first examines the scope of State legislative and executive power and its extraterritorial effect with respect to the regulation of transboundary rivers. Secondly, the article considers inconsistencies between the laws and regulations of two States with respect to transboundary rivers. Finally, constitutional implications and limits on State power are examined, with particular focus on whether there may be scope for the extension of the Melbourne Corporation principle to assist in the resolution of some transboundary river disputes.

Third party conflict management of transboundary river disputes

Purpose – This paper aims to fill the gaps by conducting the first large n study examining the role of third parties in the emergence of river agreements in Asia and Africa during the time period 1948-2007. There is a growing literature on what explains agreements in river disputes. However, beyond individual case analysis, little systematic study has been done on the role of third parties in settling river disputes through agreement, in particular on the regions that are mostly affected by the global climate change. Design/methodology/approach – Through utilising new data on the role of third parties in river disputes, this study shows that third party involvement in the conflict management of river disputes increases the likelihood of reaching river agreements. Findings – The findings suggest that third parties use both diplomatic and economic means to increase the likelihood of emergence of river agreements, and both strategies are equally important to induce formalised cooperation. Research limitations/implications – Yet the present study covers only two regions, and it does not delve into a discussion of the conditions under which third party interventions are successful. Rather, these are aspects that need to be explored in the future. Practical implications – Given the current uncertainty around security challenges resulting from climate change, and with predictions of future water wars, this research contributes to the understanding how to peacefully manage current and potential conflicts around transboundary waters. Originality/value – This study is the first large n study examining the role of third parties in the emergence of river agreements in Asia and Africa.

Time is on my side? The impact of timing and dispute type on militarized conflict duration

What influences the duration of interstate militarized conflicts? I argue that duration is affected by when the militarization occurs in the overarching dispute. Further, I suggest that the type of dispute being fought over has a conditioning effect. I hypothesize that later-occurring militarizations will last longer, but only in disputes over territorial issues. I test my argument on a sample of militarized conflicts over territorial, maritime, and river disputes, using a dynamic methodological technique to account for states’ strategic calculations. I find empirical support for my theoretical claims, contributing to our understanding of the interplay between interstate disputes and militarization.

Mediation in Territorial, Maritime and River Disputes

This article seeks to explain factors that make mediation attempts more or less likely in territorial, maritime, and river disputes. I argue that the intensity of the dispute and the salience of disputed territory have strong influence on mediation attempts. The study further examines the impact of these factors on the type of mediation strategy (directive, procedural, or communications). Hypotheses about mediation attempts are tested with theicowdata set of interstate territorial, maritime, and river disputes from 1816 to 2001. Findings indicate that intensity of the dispute and salience of disputed territory have a strong impact on the selection of mediation in the first place, and second, that salience of disputed territory makes the directive strategy more likely, while intensity of the dispute makes procedural or communications strategies more likely.

Geopolitics of Water: Sustaining Environmental and Human Rights Implications

Water is an imperative element for life and an indispensable resource for a nation. Its abundance or scarcity significantly affects the national power. It widely contributes to the core sectors such as health, agriculture, industry etc. which makes it immensely important for socio-economic welfare and development of a nation. Its indispensability and usefulness often makes it a subject of dispute among countries and in some cases also within a country. Desperation and apprehension of water shortages have fueled a number of conflicts in many regions around the world. ‘Water Wars’ as they are called have become one of the vital issues of the contemporary international as well as national affairs. The economic importance of water escalates such clashes. The conflicts revolve around who has the power to own and control water so as to enhance its economy. Seldom are such disputes resolved by negotiations and arbitrations, and most often, the parties to the dispute resort to the use of force to gain their control over the disputed water. A lot of environmental issues and violation of human rights have aggravated such water wars. This paper examines how water disputes impact the environment and human rights and how they aggravate such disputes. The wastes produced by the use of military forces, the chemicals and leftovers of the weapons used during the wars affect the supply of water. The wastes discharged by the industries and agricultural activities if not disposed properly tamper with the ground water and thereby causes difficulties in water supply. The river projects like constructing dams and commissioning barrages may deter the silt from being flown into the river which would otherwise fertilize the land and make it apt for agriculture, erode the banks which would otherwise be replenished by the silt carried down by the river and such erosions even sweep the deltas into the seas. Urbanization in the name of developing the societies and the increase in population tend to use more resources like water and thereby increase its demand, but the uneven distribution of water cannot satisfy such demand and hence breaks out the conflict. The tensions between the countries involved in the water dispute often lead to armed conflicts and such skirmishes violate the human rights. Moreover, when more than one country share the same source of water, the one having an upper hand often dominates and controls the water supply thereby making others having little access to it which also amounts to the violation of human rights. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the historical evolution of the conflicts, identify the political and economic factors that impact such conflicts, critically examine the causes of the environmental problems and the resulting environmental security and human rights issues, investigate the effectiveness of the cooperation between the countries or states within the countries as the case may be and the multilateral and bilateral bargaining to resolve such disputes. In this respect the paper examines the Nile river dispute, Indo-Bangladesh water dispute and a few other water disputes persisting among the Middle East countries. The paper concludes by throwing some light on certain aspects that may not be clear at this point of time, propose strategies to study and address the problems, apply the available data for making policies and recommend certain solutions so as to resolve the ongoing problems.

Final Order of the Cauvery River - A Review Report

Water as a natural resource is a crucial requirement both for mankind and by and large progress of a nation. In 1992, the International Conference on Water and Environment at Dublin upheld its significance asserting 'fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource essential to sustain life, development and the environment'. The current problem faced by the worldwide population is inadequate water supply exceeding the demand requirement. According to official source of UNICEF, about 50% of the world population lack access to clean water. The constant initiatives of sustainable water conservation unfortunately falls short taking into consideration extraneous factors like-population explosion, climate change, ever expanding industrialization and politicization of water. Similarly, in India which is crisscrossed by innumerable rivers of which chiefly fourteen being inter-state ones, water access and scarcity is an important concern. The river water, bone of contention, between the co-riparian states witnessed post Independence era, innumerable inter-state disputes like - Cauvery river conflict mainly between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, Godavari water dispute between Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka, Yamuna river dispute among Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, Narmada river conflict between Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, Ravi-Beas River dispute between Punjab and Haryana etc .However, the concerned paper will only confine its study to the Cauvery river dispute and critical review of the Final Award (2007) by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal established in 1990 thereby excluding from its purview other inter-state river water conflicts. Following are few reasons for writing this particular problem: The Cauvery, lifeline of the Indian Peninsula, is a monsoon fed river unlike the North Indian rivers. The agriculture and economic life of people of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka turn around the river. Water shortage in the area unfavorably affects the food security of paddy cultivable areas. Further more, distress years often strike a death knell to quantum of water release by the upper riparian State like Karnataka to the lower riparian state like Tamil Nadu. In this perspective, it is a very serious socio-environmental issue characterized by failure of political negotiations and interference of central governments.The Cauvery river issue is an age old problem and still continuing for more than 120 years; whereas most inter-state river disputes is more or less settled. Till now, the legal path of the Cauvery disputes is not a smooth sail. Non observance with the award given by the tribunal (Cauvery River Water Disputes Tribunal) is not backed by strict sanctions and by rendering apology the political officials had taken the escapist route. Even after the final order, the petitions filed by the rival states are pending for hearing before the Supreme Court. Thus, the issue demands attraction undeniably due to its legal regulatory gaps. In this relevance, the present article will deal with the extent of future promise hold by the order in encouraging peaceful settlement among all the stakeholders. For convenience, the whole paper is divided into various parts. The First Part deals with the water jurisprudence of the inter-state river disputes. The Second Part will focus on the legal framework in India in relation to inter-state river disputes. The Third Part deals with a brief genesis of Cauvery river issue and significance of the Final Order. The Fourth and the Fifth Parts deal with the optimistic impact and critical analysis of the Final Order respectively. Finally, the last Part ends with suggestion and conclusion.

Third Party Mediation of International River Disputes: Lessons from the Indus River

AbstractThird parties have been active in assisting adversarial states to navigate their international river disputes. By using the carrot and stick to facilitate compromise, mediators have also participated in the negotiations leading to the signing of treaties over international rivers. Yet, due to the nature of the issue confronting riparian states, the long-term impact of these efforts is likely to be unstable cooperation rather than cooperation. This is still an important contribution, because the absence of mediation efforts may contribute to an environment of conflict. However, since riparian states confront a relationship that involves the need to continuously manage disputes that arise as states develop their international rivers, a mediator may be more effective in facilitating cooperation if it assists developing states with a history of animosity to establish effectively designed river basin commissions and it oversees the implementation of treaties. Participating in the initial years of a treaty's implementation by coordinating the donor community to underwrite projects can minimize the potential disputes riparians confront. An effectively designed river basin commission can assist in facilitating cooperation long after the mediator has departed from the region. To demonstrate this argument, the article draws on the Indus River case, which has lived through four different phases. The Euphrates and Tigris Rivers are used to illustrate the argument's ability to explain other cases.