Peaceful Management of International River Claims

Abstract

As global water scarcity increases, both scholars and leaders have suggested that water will be a leading cause of future armed conflict. Yet other scholars argue that states typically cooperate rather than fight to manage their shared water resources. We address these arguments by examining the management of internationally shared rivers in the Americas, Western Europe, and the Middle East from 1900-2001. We propose hypotheses on the factors that lead states to become involved in disagreements over shared rivers as well as the factors that lead them to negotiate over these disagreements. Heckman probit analysis suggests that water scarcity --found by past work to be an important influence on armed conflict over rivers --is also an important influence on peaceful efforts to settle river problems; river claims are more likely where water supply is lower and demand is greater, but negotiations are also generally more likely in these same situations. Furthermore, while the existence of river treaties does not prevent the emergence of river claims, the presence of at least one treaty over the specific subject of the claim provides an important starting point that greatly increases the likelihood of negotiations over such claims. We conclude that the more pessimistic views of water management are missing an important part of the story. States are much more likely to negotiate in the most dangerous situations, and institutionalization of river resources can make an important contribution to negotiations over any disagreements that do emerge.

Flood risk management, an approach to managing cross-border hazards

“…For Rivers also cross political borders leading to complex issues in governance and management (Sadoff and Grey 2002). Existing research has explored these challenges and has noted the importance of policy styles, especially the problematic transition from policy formulation to policy implementation in water management across jurisdictions (Kingsford 1999;Brochmann and Hensel 2009;Wiering and Arts 2006;Wiering et al 2010). The spaces for management of rivers are thus fluid as they flow through particular locations; plants and animals may or may not move; and sediment and river materials flow or are deposited in particular places (Bracken and Oughton 2014).…”

Environmental changes and violent conflict

“…In addition, systematic empirical analyses suggest that transboundary waters are associated with low-level conflicts, but not with full-scale 'water wars' (e.g. Gleditsch and Hegre 2000, Toset et al 2000, Hensel et al 2006, Brochmann and Hensel 2009, Dinar 2009, Dinar et al 2011. In contrast to these studies, Kalbhenn (2012), Dinar et al (2007), Wolf (2002), and Yoffe et al (2003) report that states tend to cooperate rather than fight over their shared water resources, and most international water conflicts are not full-scale wars, but rather diplomatic tensions 8 .…”

Governing International Watercourses - Perspectives from Different Disciplines: A Comprehensive Literature Review

“…2004, Dinar 2004, Hensel et.al. 2006, Brochmann/Hensel 2009, Dinar 2009, Tir/Ackermann 2009): The debate is driven by the idea that a high degree of water scarcity is linked to a high likelihood of severe collective action problems and thus a low likelihood of successful institutionalized cooperation (e.g. Hensel et.al.…”

“…In addition, the significance of the river and its resources to the respective riparian states has been identified as an indicator for the likelihood of IWT signature and RBO formation (LeMarquand 1977, Espey/Towfique 2004, Brochmann/Hensel 2009). The central argument brought forward by proponents of this approach is that negotiations over institutionalized cooperation mechanisms are less likely to be successful if the river is considered as particularly important by at least one of the riparian states (Brochmann/Hensel 2009: 6).…”