Types of Transboundary Water Governance Regimes: Theoretical Discussion and Empirical Illustrations

  • Christian BréthautEmail author
  • Géraldine Pflieger
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Water Governance: Policy and Practice book series (PSWG)


This chapter offers an analytical tool for exploring the governance of transboundary rivers by presenting three governance regimes: integrated, monofunctional and polycentric. First, the theory underpinning each model is introduced and discussed, then each is illustrated by a specific case study—the Rhine for the integrated regime, the Danube for the monofunctional regime and the Columbia River for the polycentric regime.


  1. Bernauer, T. (2002). Explaining success and failure in international river management. Aquatic Sciences, 64(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birkland, T. A. (2004). “The world changed today”: Agenda-setting and policy change in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Review of Policy Research, 21(2), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bokor-Szegö, H. (1962). La Convention de Belgrade et le régime du Danube. Annuaire Français de Droit International, 8(1), 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouché, H. (1981). L’action de la Commission Internationale pour la Protection du Rhin Contre la Pollution. International Business Law, 9, 65.Google Scholar
  5. Bressers, H., & de Boer, C. (2013). Contextual interaction theory for assessing water governance, policy and knowledge transfer. In Water governance, policy and knowledge transfer (pp. 56–74). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bréthaut, C. (2018). Transboundary water management: From geopolitics to a non-state analytical perspective: The case of the Rhône River. In A critical approach to international water management trends (pp. 71–95). London: Palgrave. Google Scholar
  7. Bréthaut, C., & Pflieger, G. (2015). The shifting territorialities of the Rhone River’s transboundary governance: A historical analysis of the evolution of the functions, uses and spatiality of river basin governance. Regional Environmental Change, 15(3), 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter, C., & Smith, A. (2008). Revitalizing public policy approaches to the EU: ‘Territorial institutionalism’, fisheries and wine. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(2), 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cattell, D. T. (1960). The politics of the Danube Commission under Soviet control. American Slavic and East European Review, 19(3), 380–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conca, K., Wu, F., & Mei, C. (2006). Global regime formation or complex institution building? The principled content of international river agreements. International Studies Quarterly, 50(2), 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cosens, B., & Fremier, A. (2014). Assessing system resilience and ecosystem services in large river basins: A case study of the Columbia River Basin. Idaho Law Review, 51, 91.Google Scholar
  12. Cosens, B. A., & Williams, M. K. (2012). Resilience and water governance: Adaptive governance in the Columbia River Basin. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 3.Google Scholar
  13. Dieperink, C. (1999). Tussen zout en zalm: Lessen uit de ontwikkeling van het regime inzake de Rijnvervuiling.Google Scholar
  14. Enjolras, B. (2008). Régimes de gouvernance et services d’intérêt général, une perspective internationale. Brussels: PIE Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Garrick, D. E. (2015). Water allocation in rivers under pressure: Water trading, transaction costs and transboundary governance in the Western US and Australia. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. Global Water Partnership. (2000). Integrated water resources management (No. TAC Background Papers No. 4). Retrieved from
  17. Hand, B. K., Flint, C. G., Frissell, C. A., Muhlfeld, C. C., Devlin, S. P., Kennedy, B. P., … Stanford, J. A. (2018). A social-ecological perspective for riverscape management in the Columbia River Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(S1), s23–s33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirt, P. W., & Sowards, A. M. (2012). The past and future of the Columbia River. In The Columbia River Treaty revisited: Transboundary river governance in the face of uncertainty. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Huisman, P., De Jong, J., & Wieriks, K. (2000). Transboundary cooperation in shared river basins: Experiences from the Rhine. Meuse and North Sea. Water Policy, 1(2), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jochim, A. E., & May, P. J. (2010). Beyond subsystems: Policy regimes and governance. Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kliot, N., Shmueli, D., & Shamir, U. (2001). Institutions for management of transboundary water resources: Their nature, characteristics and shortcomings. Water Policy, 3(3), 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lagendijk, V. (2015). Divided development: Post-war ideas on river utilisation and their influence on the development of the Danube. The International History Review, 37(1), 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lankford, B., & Hepworth, N. (2010). The cathedral and the bazaar: Monocentric and polycentric river basin management. Water Alternatives, 3(1), 82.Google Scholar
  25. Marty, F. (2001). Managing international rivers: Problems, politics and institutions. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (p. 409). Bern: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. McGinnis, M. D. (1999). Polycentric governance and development: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  27. McKinney, M., Baker, L., Buvel, A. M., & Fischer, A. (2010). Managing transboundary natural resources: An assessment of the need to revise and update the Columbia River Treaty. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 16, 307.Google Scholar
  28. Milman, A., Bunclark, L., Conway, D., & Adger, W. N. (2013). Assessment of institutional capacity to adapt to climate change in transboundary river basins. Climatic Change, 121(4), 755–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mostert, E. (2009). International co-operation on Rhine water quality 1945–2008: An example to follow? Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 34(3), 142–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
  31. Ostrom, E. (2008). Institutions and the environment. Economic Affairs, 28(3), 24–31. Scholar
  32. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Transnational Corporations Review, 2(2), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365. Scholar
  35. Pritchard, S. B. (2011). Confluence: The nature of technology and the remaking of the Rhône (Vol. 172). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rangeley, R., Thiam, B. M., Andersen, R. A., & Lyle, C. A. (1994). International river basin organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  37. Rieman, B. E., Smith, C. L., Naiman, R. J., Ruggerone, G. T., Wood, C. C., Huntly, N., … Congleton, J. (2015). A comprehensive approach for habitat restoration in the Columbia Basin. Fisheries, 40(3), 124–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sadoff, C. W., & Grey, D. (2002). Beyond the river: The benefits of cooperation on international rivers. Water Policy, 4(5), 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schiff, J. S. (2017). The evolution of Rhine River governance: Historical lessons for modern transboundary water management. Water History, 9(3), 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (2000, May). Local communities, policy prescriptions, and watershed management in Arizona, California, and Colorado. Eighth Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bloomington, IN, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Varone, F., Nahrath, S., Aubin, D., & Gerber, J.-D. (2013). Functional regulatory spaces. Policy Sciences, 46(4), 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weber, M. (1997). The methodology of the social sciences. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wieriks, K., & Schulte‐Wülwer‐Leidig, A. (1997). Integrated water management for the Rhine River Basin, from pollution prevention to ecosystem improvement. In Natural resources forum (Vol. 21, pp. 147–156). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Wolfrom, M. (1964). La pollution des eaux du Rhin. Annuaire Français de Droit International, 10(1), 737–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
  46. Young, O. R. (2008). The architecture of global environmental governance: Bringing science to bear on policy. Global Environmental Politics, 8(1), 14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNESCO Chair on hydropoliticsInstitute for Environmental Sciences, University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.UNESCO Chair on hydropoliticsInstitute for Environmental Sciences, University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations