Advertisement

Third Party Intervention in Conflict Resolution: Dispute Between Bangladesh and India over Control of the Ganges River

  • Keith W. HipelEmail author
  • Maiko Sakamoto
  • Yoshimi Hagihara
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 4)

Abstract

To demonstrate the strategic influence a third party can have on negotiations, a formal approach to resolving a complex conflict is applied to an important international water resources controversy. Specifically, third party intervention is employed within the framework of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) to systematically investigate the ongoing dispute between Bangladesh and India over the regulation of the Ganges River by India at the Farakka Barrage located just upstream on the Ganges River in India before it flows into Bangladesh. A general system of systems engineering approach to Third Party Intervention within the GMCR structure is designed to reflect a range of ways in which it can be implemented in practice. Having an insightful and powerful tool like Third Party GMCR permits one to ascertain how a Third Party can guide a serious conflict to a more reasonable resolution which may be mutually beneficial to all concerned parties.

Keywords

Ganges river Farakka barrage Graph model for conflict resolution International dispute Third party intervention Upstream-downstream conflicts 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. Conrad W. Hipel for his professional editing of this chapter.

References

  1. Bashar, M. A., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2012). Fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 20(4), 760–770. doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2183603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bashar, M. A., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2014). Fuzzy option prioritization for the graph model for conflict resolution. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 246, 34–48. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2014.02.11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bercovitch, J., & Jackson, R. D. W. (2009). Conflict resolution in the twenty-first century: Principles, methods and approaches. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bernath Walker, S. G., Hipel, K. W., & Inohara, T. (2012). Attitudes and preferences: Approaches to representing decision maker desires. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(12), 6637–6647. j.amc.2011.11.102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fang, L., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (1993). Interactive decision making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Fang, L., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Peng, X. (2003a). A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 1: Model formulation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, SMC-33(1), 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fang, L., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Peng, X. (2003b). A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 2: Analysis and output interpretation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, SMC-33(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fraser, N. M., & Hipel, K. W. (1979). Solving complex conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 9(12), 805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fraser, N. M., & Hipel, K. W. (1984). Conflict analysis: Models and resolutions. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Global Water Partnership (GWP), & International Network of Basin Organization (INBO). (2009). A handbook for integrated water resources management in basins, published by GWP and INBO, 2009. Available at www.gwpforum.org and www.inbo-news.org. Accessed on 31 Mar 2015.
  11. Greig, J. M., & Diehl, P. F. (2012). International mediation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hagihara, Y., & Sakamoto, M. (2004). Conflict management on utilization of the Ganges water resources between Bangladesh and India. Annals of the Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, 47(B), 13.Google Scholar
  13. Hamouda, L., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2004). Strength of preference in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamouda, L., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2006). Strength of preference in graph models for multiple decision-maker conflicts. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 179(1), 314–327. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2005.11.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hipel, K. W. (Ed.). (2009a). Conflict resolution (Vol. 1). Oxford: Eolss Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Hipel, K. W. (Ed.). (2009b). Conflict resolution (Vol. 2). Oxford: Eolss Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Hipel, K. W., & Bernath Walker, S. (2011). Conflict analysis in environmental management. Environmetrics, 22, 279–293. doi: 10.1002/env.1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hipel, K. W., Fang, L., & Kilgour, D. M. (1993). Game theoretic models in engineering decision making. Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Infrastructure Planning and Management, 470(IV-20), 1–16.Google Scholar
  19. Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., Fang, L., & Peng, X. (1997). The decision support system GMCR in environmental conflict management. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 83(2 and 3), 117–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hipel, K. W., Fang, L., & Kilgour, D. M. (2008a). Decision support systems in water resources and environmental management. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 13(9), 761–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hipel, K. W., Obeidi, A., Fang, L., & Kilgour, D. M. (2008b). Adaptive systems thinking in integrated water resources management with insights into conflicts over water exports. INFOR, 46(1), 51–69.Google Scholar
  22. Hipel, K. W., Obeidi, A., Fang, L., & Kilgour, D. M. (2009). Sustainable environmental management from a system of systems perspective. In M. Jamshidi(ed) (Ed.), System of systems engineering: Innovations for the 21st century (pp. 443–481). New York: Wiley. Chapter 18.Google Scholar
  23. Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Bashar, M. A. (2011a). Fuzzy preferences in multiple participant decision making. Scientia Iranica, Transactions D: Computer Science & Engineering and Electrical Engineering, 18(3(D1)), 627–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Fang, L. (2011b). The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. In J. J. Cochran, L. A. Cox, P. Keskinocak, J. P. Kharoufeh, & J. C. Smith (Eds.), Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science (pp. 2099–2111). New York: Wiley. Vol. 3 of 8.Google Scholar
  25. Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Kinsara, R. A. (2014). Strategic investigations of water conflicts in the Middle East. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(3), 355–376. doi: 10.1007/s10726-012-9325-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hipel, K. W., Fang, L., Cullmann, J., & Bristow, M. (Eds.). (2015). Conflict resolution in water resources and environmental management (p. 291). Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14215-9. ISBN 978-3-319-14215-9.Google Scholar
  27. Howard, N. (1971). Paradoxes of rationality: Theory of metagames and political behaviour. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Inohara, T., & Hipel, K. W. (2008a). Coalition analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Systems Engineering, 11(4), 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Inohara, T., & Hipel, K. W. (2008b). Interrelationships among noncooperative and coalition stability concepts. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 17(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Inohara, T., Hipel, K. W., & Walker, S. (2007). Conflict analysis approaches for investigating attitudes and misperceptions in the war of 1812. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 16(2), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2014). World economic outlook data base. Washington, DC: IMF.Google Scholar
  32. Kilgour, D. M., & Eden, C. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Kilgour, D. M., Hipel, K. W., & Fang, L. (1987). The graph model for conflicts. Automatica, 23(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kilgour, D. M., Hipel, K. W., Peng, X., & Fang, L. (2001). Coalition analysis in group decision support. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10, 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kinsara, R. A., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2015a). Inverse approach to the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 45(5), 734–742. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2014.2376473.
  36. Kinsara, R. A., Petersons, O., Hipel, K. W, & Kilgour, D. M. (2015b). Advanced decision support system for the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Journal of Decision Systems, special issue on Integrated Decision Support Systems, 24(2), 117–145. doi:  10.1080/12460125.2015.1046682.
  37. Kondo, N. (ed) (1997). Gendai minami ajia no kokusai kankei (The present international relations in South Asia), Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization, Mihamaku, Chiba, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
  38. Kuang, H., Bashar, M. A., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (2015). Grey-based preference in a Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with multiple decision makers. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics: Systems. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2014.2387096.Google Scholar
  39. Li, K. W., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Fang, L. (2004a). Preference uncertainty in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 34(4), 507–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2004b). Status quo analysis of the Flathead River conflict. Water Resources Research, 40(5), 9. doi: 10.1029/2003WR002596. W05S03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2005). Status quo analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56, 699–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-player games. Proceedings: National Academy of Sciences, 36, 48–49.Google Scholar
  43. Nash, J. F. (1951). Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 54, 286–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., & Metcalfe, D. (2002). Negotiation analysis: The science and art of collaborative decision making. Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sage, A. P. (1991). Decision support systems engineering. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Sakamoto, M., & Hagihara, Y. (2001). A study of the changing process of the conflict on a large-scale regional development project. Studies in Regional Science, 31(3), 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sakamoto, M., Hagihara, Y., & Hipel, K. W. (2004). A study on the roles of a third party in the Ganges River water conflict between Bangladesh and India (in Japanese). In Proceedings of the environment research conference, sponsored by the committee on environmental systems of the Japan society of civil engineering, held in Tokyo, 3–4 Nov 2004, Vol. 32, pp. 29–36.Google Scholar
  49. Sakamoto, M., Hagihara, Y., & Hipel, K. W. (2005). Coordination process by a third party in the conflict between Bangladesh and India over regulation of the Ganges River. In Proceedings of the 2005 I.E. international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, held in the Hilton Waikoloa Village, The Big Island of Hawaii, 9–12 Oct 2005, pp. 1119–1125.Google Scholar
  50. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of games and economic behaviour (3rd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Xu, H., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (2009a). Matrix representation of solution concepts in multiple decision maker graph models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 39(1), 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Xu, H., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (2009b). Multiple levels of preference in interactive strategic decisions. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 57, 3300–3313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith W. Hipel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maiko Sakamoto
    • 2
  • Yoshimi Hagihara
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Systems EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.University of TokyoKashiwaJapan
  3. 3.Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations