Advertisement

Theories of Conflict and Cooperation Over Transboundary River Basins

  • Gábor BaranyaiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Water Governance - Concepts, Methods, and Practice book series (WGCMP)

Abstract

Interstate cooperation over shared river basins is one of the most complex and difficult challenges of international relations. This is largely due to the natural asymmetry in the geographical position and interests of upstream and downstream riparian states. Such asymmetry gives rise to a range of collective action problems, i.e. situations where all concerned parties (basin states) would benefit from cooperation, but the magnitude and/or the difference in the associated costs to be borne can create an impediment to joint action. This cooperation dilemma has been the subject of a range of political theories trying to provide an explanation as to why certain states choose to collaborate over shared water resources while others do not. Over the past decades two major schools have emerged: one concentrating on the potential of conflicts (wars) triggered by competition for water and one focusing on the cooperation imperative of transboundary water resources. While the water wars theory has largely been proven unfounded, the cooperation school has also failed to provide a comprehensive explanation of the grossly divergent quality of co-riparian relations. Today, the mainstream theory is that conflict and cooperation coexist and they emerge largely as a function of the institutional capacity of the shared basin. Naturally, there exists a number of variables that in specific basins may influence riparian behaviour significantly and, as such, may turn out to be critical drivers of conflict or cooperation irrespective of the foregoing theoretical premises. These include geography and the availability of water, the role of water in national security, the geopolitical setting and non-water-related political integration, domestic issues, etc.

Keywords

Conflict Cooperation Transboundary river basin Theories Institutional capacity 

References

  1. Allouche J (2005) Water nationalism: an explanation of past and present conflicts in central asia, the middle east and the indian subcontinent? Ph.D. Thesis No. 699, Geneva, Université de GenèveGoogle Scholar
  2. Baranyai G, Bartus G (2016) Anatomy of a deadlock: a systemic analysis of why the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros dam dispute is still unresolved. Water Policy 18:39–49Google Scholar
  3. Delli Priscoli J, Wolf A (2009) Managing and transforming water conflicts. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dinar S (2008) International water treaties—negotiation and cooperation along transboundary rivers. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Dinar S, Katz D, David, De Stefano L, Blankespoor B (2014) climate change, conflict, and cooperation—global analysis of the resilience of international river treaties to increased water variability. Policy research working paper 6916, Washington D.C., The World BankCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dombrowsky I (2009) Revisiting the potential for benefit sharing in the management of transboundary rivers. Water Policy 11:125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elhance A (1999) Hydropolitics in the 3rd world: conflict and cooperation in international river basins. United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Garrick D, Anderson G, Connell D, Pittock J (eds) (2014) Federal rivers: managing water in multi-layered political systems. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodin E (2010) The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. McCaffrey S (2015) The 1997 UN convention: compatibility and complementarity. In: Tanzi A et al (eds) The UNECE convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes—its contribution to international water cooperation. Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, pp 51–55Google Scholar
  11. Moellenkamp S (2007) The”WFD-effect” on upstream-downstream relations in international river basins? insights from the Rhine and the Elbe basins. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss, European Geosciences Union 4(3):1407–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Newton J (2014) Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink: an exploration of the lack of a formal global water governance regime. PhD thesis, Medford, Tufts University, Fletcher School of Law and DiplomacyGoogle Scholar
  13. Rees G (2010) The role of power and institutions in hydrodiplomacy: does realism or neo-liberal institutionalism offer a stronger theoretical basis for analysing inter-state cooperation over water security? MA paper, London, School of Oriental and African StudiesGoogle Scholar
  14. Schmeier S (2013) Governing international watercourses—river basin organizations and the sustainable governance of internationally shared rivers and lakes. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Subramanian A, Brown B, Wolf A (2014) Understanding and overcoming risks to cooperation along transboundary rivers. Water Policy 16:824–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Turton A (2008) The southern african hydropolitical complex. In: Varis O, Tortajada C, Biswas A (eds) Management of transboundary rivers and lakes. Heidelberg, Springer, Berlin, pp 21–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wolf A (2009) Hydropolitical vulnerability and resilience. In: UNEP hydropolitical vulnerability and resilience along international waters. Europe, Nairobi, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  18. Zeitoun M, Warner J (2006) Hydro-hegemony— a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts. Water Policy 8:435–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Water ScienceUniversity of Public ServiceBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations