Fluid Sovereignty: State–Nature Relations in the Hasbani Basin, Southern Lebanon

Abstract

The concept of fluid sovereignty denotes configurations of state authority in which flows of living and non-living things, within and across borders, render insecure claims of unconditional territorial control. Loss of monopoly control of the means of violence within a territory conventionally signals weak political sovereignty. Bordering Israel (including the occupied Golan Heights) and Syria, the Hasbani Basin, southern Lebanon, seems to exemplify such sovereign failings: over decades, rival security providers have provoked political instability and conflict in the region. However, fluid sovereignty brings to the fore state-nature relations neglected in scholarship on "fragile" or "failing" states. Informed by geographical work on hybrid sovereignties and vital materialism, we show how sovereign claims over the Hasbani Basin extend to (sub)terranean water sources and rainfall-dependent agricultural lands, both of which are deeply securitized. Incomplete centralization and territorialization by Lebanon of the Hasbani Basin evinces fractured state nature-the inability of the state to realize volumetric control of, and authority over, basin waters. This state nature is coproduced by the fluid materiality of the waters themselves, whose hydroclimatic circulation and contingencies are at odds with territorial designs for volumetric control. For rural communities in the Hasbani Basin economically dependent on access to agricultural water, field research reveals a practical experience of fluid sovereignty, both in adapting to water variability and also navigating use of agricultural borderlands subject to conflict-related dangers. Recent conflict spillovers from the Syrian war have reinforced, for the majority Druze population, the low legitimacy of Lebanese state nature.

Water in war: Understanding the impacts of armed conflict on water resources and their management

“…Instead, they provide empirical descriptions of observations by the authors. These include, for example, damage to water infrastructure (Mason & Khawlie, 2016; Philip, 2014), changes in power dynamics and control over water resources (Desai & Sanghvi, 2017; Zieba, Yengoh, & Tom, 2017), and financial challenges faced by water service providers (Carbonnier, 2006). While these accounts provide empirical insights, they do not build on any theoretical framework related to conflict impacts.…”

“…Since stable institutions play a key role in transboundary water governance and are a prerequisite for participation in multilateral platforms, civil wars that weaken state institutions can cause a deadlock in negotiation and cooperation processes (Kibaroglu, 2019). Political instability and a lack of state authority in one country can also create uncertainty regarding the availability of shared water resources in downstream countries, as shown by Mason and Khawlie (2016) for the case of the Hasbani basin which is primarily located in southern Lebanon, a region that has struggled with the presence of Hezbollah militants for decades. Similarly, the presence of Boko Haram in Nigeria adds uncertainty to the governance of the Lake Chad basin, which is shared by Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria, and has already been the site of local conflicts over control and access to resources among nationals of the different countries (Zieba et al, 2017).…”

Territoryincognita

“…Campling and Colás (2018: 777) reveal the inherent difficulties of securing 'terraqueous territoriality' in this geophysical To cite this article: Usher, M. (2019) Territory incognita. Progress in Human Geography, DOI: 10.1177/0309132519879492 context, especially for lesser developed countries, which they explore in respect to exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and counter-piracy initiatives (see also Mason and Khawlie, 2016). Sammler (2019: 2) argues that rising sea levels are pushing back legal 'baselines', the coastline borders of nation-states, blurring physically and theoretically the very notion of bounded sovereignty.…”

“…Also challenging the terrestrial bias in political geography, Steinberg and Peters (2015) propose a research agenda that examines how the volumetric depth, roiling matter and colossal forces of marine environments are accommodated into or resist territorial arrangements. Campling and Colás (2018: 777) reveal the inherent difficulties of securing ‘terraqueous territoriality’ in this geophysical context, especially for lesser developed countries, which they explore in respect to exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and counter-piracy initiatives (see also Mason and Khawlie, 2016). Sammler (2019: 2) argues that rising sea levels are pushing back legal ‘baselines’, the coastline borders of nation-states, blurring physically and theoretically the very notion of bounded sovereignty.…”

Ocean frontiers: epistemologies, jurisdictions, commodifications

“…Knowledge gaps are fundamentally linked to the challenges of “knowing” volumetric and dynamic oceanic ecological and biological processes that are perpetually moving. These challenges shape the constitution of the ocean frontier, and though there are volumetric and dynamic movements to govern on, under, and between terrestrial areas (see, e.g., Lunstrum ; Mason and Khawlie ; Valdivia ), the vastness of oceans and complications of bounding present important epistemological changes. In marine turtle conservation efforts, for instance, scientists tasked with assessing the health of turtle populations are plagued by scientific uncertainty arising from the challenges of studying animals that make frequent transoceanic migrations, utilising different ocean areas through distinct life cycle phases.…”