Why have some countries on international rivers been successful negotiating treaties? A global perspective

[1] This paper presents a typology of international rivers based on asymmetries in economic and political power among riparian states. This typology is then used, along with other factors such as the spatial location of riparians on the river, to explore the question of why some riparians on international rivers have been able to successfully negotiate treaties and others have not. The findings lend support to both economic and political economy explanations of cooperative action on international rivers. International rivers with riparians with countervailing economic and political power are far more likely to have negotiated treaties than other river types. Riparian states on international rivers sharing a “western civilization” were much more likely to have concluded treaties than riparian states on rivers in other civilizations. Somewhat surprisingly, rivers that cross “civilization boundaries” appear no less likely to have treaties than international rivers than run entirely through riparian states that share a single civilization. Adjacent upstream/downstream or “side-by-side” riparians were less likely to have concluded treaties than “country pairs” with other spatial relationships.

[1]  Scott Dec Barret,et al.  Conflict and cooperation in managing international water resources , 1994 .

[2]  Giorgio Guariso,et al.  Implications of ethiopian water development for Egypt and Sudan , 1987 .

[3]  David Grey,et al.  Africa's International Rivers: An Economic Perspective , 2003 .

[4]  A. Dinar,et al.  Middle East Hydropolitics and Equity Measures for Water-Sharing Agreements , 1994 .

[5]  M. Olson Power And Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist And Capitalist Dictatorships , 1999 .

[6]  J. Allan,et al.  Water, peace and the Middle East : negotiating resources in the Jordan Basin , 1996 .

[7]  K. Asmal Dams and development: a new framework for decision-making. The report of the World Commission on dams. , 2000 .

[8]  J. Waterbury,et al.  Playing chicken on the Nile? The implications of microdam development in the Ethiopian highlands and Egypt's New Valley Project , 1998 .

[9]  Malgosia Fitzmaurice,et al.  Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses , 1997, Leiden Journal of International Law.

[10]  Kishor Uprety,et al.  Conflict and Cooperation on South Asia's International Rivers:A Legal Perspective , 2002 .

[11]  Alexander Wendt Social Theory of International Politics: “Ideas all the way down?”: on the constitution of power and interest , 1999 .

[12]  Samuel P. Huntington,et al.  The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order , 1997 .

[13]  J. Danielson,et al.  International River Basins of the World , 1999 .

[14]  Belinda U. Calaguas Water security in the 21st century: report from the Second World Water Forum and Ministerial Conference. , 2000 .

[15]  Salman M. A. Salman Legal Regime for Use and Protection of International Watercourses in the Southern African Region: Evolution and Context , 2002 .

[16]  R. Elson Power and Prosperity , 1997 .

[17]  S. Barret On the Theory and Diplomacy of Environmental Treaty-Making , 1998 .

[18]  Kenneth N. Waltz,et al.  Theory of International Politics , 1979 .

[19]  E. McClelland,et al.  Opportunities for Regional and International Cooperation in the Nile Basin , 1992 .

[20]  A. Wolf,et al.  International waters: identifying basins at risk , 2003 .

[21]  John Waterbury,et al.  The Nile Basin: National Determinants of Collective Action , 2002 .

[22]  D. Kilgour,et al.  Are stable agreements for sharing international river waters now possible , 1999 .

[23]  Hilary A. Sigman International Spillovers and Water Quality in Rivers: Do Countries Free Ride? , 2001 .

[24]  M. Lowi,et al.  Water and Power: The Politics of a Scarce Resource in the Jordan River Basin , 1993 .