Evolution of Transboundary Politics in the Euphrates-Tigris River System: New Perspectives and Political Challenges

Kibaroğlu, Ayşegül; Scheumann, Waltina

doi:10.1163/19426720-01902008

Cited by 57 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…b. Political instability (Instab): research on environmental peacemaking emphasizes that political instability complicates continuous communication, further cooperation, and trust building between the decisionmakers of two states (Ali & Watzin, 2013; Kibaroglu & Scheumann, 2013). According to this logic, political instability in one or both rival states should inhibit reconciliation after the conclusion of a CEA.…”

Section: Qualitative Comparative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Many observers consider the 1987 Brundtland Report (followed shortly by the Montreal Protocol in the same year) as a turning point in international attention to environmental issues (Zürn, 1998). Hence, all five-year periods overlapping with the period 1987–2010 are calibrated as being characterized by higher environmental attention. Political instability ( Instab ): research on environmental peacemaking emphasizes that political instability complicates continuous communication, further cooperation, and trust building between the decisionmakers of two states (Ali & Watzin, 2013; Kibaroglu & Scheumann, 2013). According to this logic, political instability in one or both rival states should inhibit reconciliation after the conclusion of a CEA.…”

Section: Qualitative Comparative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does environmental peacemaking between states work? Insights on cooperative environmental agreements and reconciliation in international rivalries

Ide

2018

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on environmental peacemaking argues that cooperation in the face of shared environmental challenges can facilitate further cooperation, trust building, and eventually peace between states in conflict. Empirical research on environmental peacemaking, predominantly conducted in the form of single case studies, has so far been inconclusive. This article uses a cross-case, multimethod research design to test the environmental peacemaking proposition. More specifically, it argues that the conclusion of a cooperative environmental agreement can have a positive impact on reconciliation between rival states. Based on a new dataset on international rivalry termination, transboundary protected areas, and international freshwater agreements, this article first conducts a statistical analysis and a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). The results are then verified and refined by six case studies. Triangulation of findings from the three studies suggests that the conclusion of a cooperative environmental agreement facilitates reconciliation in international rivalries. But this effect is contingent on a number of scope conditions, such as high environmental attention, internal political stability, wider patterns or traditions of environmental cooperation, and already ongoing processes of reconciliation. Still, the findings imply that environmental challenges do not only affect peace and security in a negative way. Addressing them jointly also opens opportunities for peacemaking and peacebuilding between states.

show abstract

Section: Qualitative Comparative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Qualitative Comparative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Does environmental peacemaking between states work? Insights on cooperative environmental agreements and reconciliation in international rivalries

Ide

2018

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Mahakali Treaty, signed in 1996 between India and Nepal, allowed Nepal to withdraw 28.35 m 3 /s of water from the Sarada Barrage in the wet season, and 4.25 m 3 /s of water in the dry season, while India should maintain a minimum flow of 9.91 m 3 /s downstream of the barrage to maintain and preserve the river ecosystem (Salman & Uprety, 1999). The 1987 bilateral agreement between Turkey and Syria over the allocation of waters of the Euphrates River obliged Turkey to release a minimum flow of 500 m 3 /s of Euphrates water to Syria (Kibaroglu & Scheumann, 2013). The 1959 Agreement signed between Egypt and Sudan established the annual water allocation for the two downstream riparian states in the Nile basin and guaranteed 55.5 billion m 3 of water for Egypt and 18.5 billion m 3 for Sudan (Cascao, 2008).…”

Section: No Consideration Of Environmental or Economic Driversmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical review of the Ganges Water Sharing arrangement

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 1996 Ganges Water Sharing Treaty was an important breakthrough in solving disputes over sharing Ganges water between India and Bangladesh. This study evaluates cooperation reflected in the Treaty by performing a quantitative analysis on available water sharing data. The study recognized that inaccurate projection of future flow and the obligation of allocating guaranteed 991 m3/s flows perpetuate the ongoing water sharing conflicts. The provision of guaranteed minimal flow alternately to India and Bangladesh during critical periods leads to frequent occurrences of low-flow events. Results indicated that the Treaty underestimated the impact of climate variability and possibly increasing upstream water abstraction. Statistical analysis of the post-Treaty data (1997–2016) also indicated that 65% of the time Bangladesh did not receive its guaranteed share during critical dry periods with high water demand. It is advised to project the reliable water availability using a combination of modelling and improved observation of river flows. In addition, the condition of minimum guaranteed share should be removed to reduce the frequency of low-flow events in future. Although our analyses show a number of weaknesses, the Treaty could still enhance the future regional cooperation if some adjustments are made to the current terms and conditions.

show abstract

“…The bureaucracy concerned (then at the Ministry of Environment and Forestry) therefore supported these protocols vigorously because they felt that their implementation would be a useful practice for the implementation and extension of the new water legislation in Turkey, transposed from the EU water legislation (Kibaroglu & Scheumann, 2013). In other words, the bilateral MoUs between Turkey and Syria and between Turkey and Iraq shared the catalogue of aims and principles laid down by the EU WFD.…”

Section: Impact Of the Eu Water Framework Directive On Turkey's Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of Turkey’s water diplomacy and its evolving position vis-à-vis international water law

Kibaroğlu

2014

Water International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes Turkey's transboundary water policy by examining its institutional framework and basic principles. It explores the reasons why Turkey voted against the UN Watercourses Convention. Turkey's harmonization with the water law of the European Union is also scrutinized with an aim to assess its implications for transboundary water policy making. Turkish water diplomacy faces new challenges, such as the devastating impacts of prolonged droughts as well as ongoing instability and conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Hence, it is imperative for Turkey to systematically reconcile its water policy objectives in accordance with the global norms that are adopted in this field.

show abstract

Evolution of Transboundary Politics in the Euphrates-Tigris River System: New Perspectives and Political Challenges

Cited by 57 publications

References 14 publications

Does environmental peacemaking between states work? Insights on cooperative environmental agreements and reconciliation in international rivalries

Does environmental peacemaking between states work? Insights on cooperative environmental agreements and reconciliation in international rivalries

A critical review of the Ganges Water Sharing arrangement

An analysis of Turkey’s water diplomacy and its evolving position vis-à-vis international water law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About