Advertisement

Transboundary Externalities and Regional Integration

  • Rainer Durth

Abstract

Due to population growth and higher per capita use, human water use has increased tenfold over the last hundred years and is approaching 80% of the volume of fresh water that currently can be harnessed on a basis, both economically and ecologically sustainable.1 Since most of the fresh water supply is surface water from rivers and lakes, international river systems, covering almost half the land surface of the earth and being home to 44% of the world’s population,2 will become an increasingly contentious issue over the next few decades. Unless the competing claims of the riparian states can be satisfied through cooperation, they will lead to international conflicts in the medium term, as the current tensions in the Middle East exemplify. Upstream-downstream problems are problems of externalities in which the external effect always operates in the same direction, i.e. downstream. The classical economic solution to external effects is internalization: only if all parties adjacent to the river have to bear the full economic consequences of their actions will optimum utilization of the river be achieved.3

Keywords

Efficiency Gain Riparian State International Negotiation Private Party International River 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barret, S. 1992: Self-Enforcing International Environmental Agreements. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 92-34, London.Google Scholar
  2. Biswas, A. 1993: Management of International Waters: Problems and Perspective, in: Water Resources Development, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caponera, D. 1987: Patterns of Cooperation in International Water Law: Principles and Institutions, in: Utton, A.; Teclaff, A. (eds.). Transboundary Resources Law. Boulder, London, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  4. Coase, R. 1969: The Problem of Social Cost, in: The Journal of Law and Economics. Vol.12, No.1, pp. 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Durth, R. 1995: Internationaler Streit ums Wasser: Konflikt-und Kooperationspotential am Euphrat, in: Orient 36/4, pp.649–662.Google Scholar
  6. Durth, R. 1996a: Der Rhein — ein langer Weg zum grenzüberschreitenden Umweltschutz, in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B7/96, pp.38–47.Google Scholar
  7. Durth, R. 1996b: Grenzüberschreitende Umweltprobleme und regionale Integration. Zur Politischen Ökonomie von Oberlauf-Unterlauf-Problemen an grenzüberschreitenden Flüssen. Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  8. Durth, R. 1996c: Grenzüberschreitende Umweltprobleme an der Elbe — Gestern Eiserner Vorhang, heute ein europäischer Fluß, in: Deutsche Studien 33/2, pp.123–139.Google Scholar
  9. Durth, R. 1996d: Zusammenarbeit bei internationalen Oberlauf-Unterlauf-Problemen und Integration, in: Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht Nr. 2; pp. 183–208.Google Scholar
  10. Durth, R. 1996e: European Experience in the Solution of Cross-Border Environmental Problems, in: Intereconomics 31/2, pp.62–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durth, R. 1996f: Wie lassen sich grenzüberschreitende Externalitätenprobleme lösen?, in: Aussenwirtschaft, 51/IV, pp.539–557.Google Scholar
  12. Hauchler, I. (ed.) 1993:. Globale Trends 93/94, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  13. IKSR 1987: Aktionsprogramm ‘Rhein’, Straßburg.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, S.P.;Corcelle, G. 1992: The Environmental Policy of the European Communities. London, Dordrecht, Boston.Google Scholar
  15. Kiss, A.; Shelton, D. 1991: International Environmental Law. New York.Google Scholar
  16. Kolars, J.; Mitchell, W. 1991: The Euphrates River and the Southeast Anatolia Development Project. Edwardsville.Google Scholar
  17. Kühl, H. 1987: Umweltressourcen als Gegenstand internationaler Verhandlungen. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  18. Kunig, P. 1992: Nachbarrechtliche Staatenverpflichtungen bei Gefährdungen und Schädigungen der Umwelt, in: Dolzer, R. et al. 1992: Umweltschutz im Völkerrecht und Kollisionsrecht. Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht Heft 32. Heidelberg, pp.9-56.Google Scholar
  19. Lammers, J.G. 1984: Pollution of International Watercourses. Leiden.Google Scholar
  20. Luge, I. 1989: Haftung als notwendiger Teil des internationalen Meeresumweltschutzes: Der Entwurf der HNS Convention und sein Umfeld. München.Google Scholar
  21. Mäler, K.-G. 1991: Incentives in International Evironmental Poblems, in: Siebert (ed.) 1991: Environmental Scarcity: The International Dimension. Tübingen, pp.75-93.Google Scholar
  22. Meaows, D. et al. 1992: Die neuen Grenzen des Wachstums. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  23. O’Connell, M. 1992: Enforcing the New International Law of the Environment, in: German Yearbook of International Law 35, pp.293–332.Google Scholar
  24. Olson, M. 1991: Die Logik kollektiven Handelns. Tübingen.Google Scholar
  25. Paleologou, E. 1993: La protection des eaux par le droit communautaire; Cours d’été en droit et politique communautaires de l’environnement. Louvain-La-Neuve.Google Scholar
  26. Rest, A. 1986: Luftverschmutzung und Haftung in Europa: Anspruchsmöglichkeiten auf nationaler, internationaler und völkerrechtlicher Ebene. Kehl.Google Scholar
  27. Sandler, T. 1992: Collective Action. Michigan.Google Scholar
  28. Ströbele, Wolfgang J. 1991: Institutional Arrangements for Transfrontier River Pollution, in: Siebert, Horst (ed.) 1991: Environmental Scarcity — The International Dimension, Tübingen. pp.139-159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rainer Durth

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations