The Ghosts Around the Coasts: Anarchy and Equity in Transboundary River Basins

Please see attached files for oral presentation

Anarchy and the Law of International Watercourses: unpacking the role of equitable and reasonable utilisation principle in the pursuit of water conflict transformation

This thesis investigates the role of the principle of equitable and reasonable utilisation (ERU), as the core customary principle of international water law, in improving hydropolitical relations within anarchic geopolitical setting. By critically analysing the interactions between anarchy and the ERU principle, the study also provides an in-depth understanding of hydropolitical relations in the Helmand River Basin between Afghanistan and Iran. On the theoretical level, while arguing that anarchic geopolitical setting is a critical determinant of shaping hydropolitical relations, this study tackles the root causes of the failure to implement the ERU principle within such anarchic environment. Drawing upon the two frameworks of Interactional International Law and Transboundary Waters Interaction NexuS (TWINS), the study introduces the Universe of Hydropolitical Relations in order to provide a more nuanced explanation of the complex and interlinked legal and political circumstances surrounding international watercourses. The analysis shows how the interests and identities of states should be more carefully considered together if a “transformation” towards equity is expected in hydropolitical relations. The effectiveness of such transformation depends, in part, on the specific anarchic setting. This thesis, therefore, places a theoretical focus on the ERU principle, whether it has normative power to shape state’s interest and identity, its legitimate function to attack symptoms of anarchy and its potential for rendering hydropolitical relations equitable and sustainable. At the case-study level, the study assesses the existing treaty over the Helmand River with regards to the ERU principle. With its limited capacity to address the “life cycle of norms” through interactional international law, the analysis shows that the treaty rarely reflects the notion of equity. Despite limited cooperation between Afghanistan and Iran, both riparian states have continued to unilaterally utilise their shared waters. Within such an anarchic setting, the ERU principle serves rather as a bargaining strategy. While Afghanistan has been developing dams, a lack of a positive response to calls to consider environmental impacts and revive the Hamoun wetlands through mutual cooperation reflects a situation that is reminiscent of the “tragedy of the commons.” However, despite the situation in the basin remaining ad hoc for over a century, new developments in cooperation may contribute to creating a shared understanding between Afghanistan and Iran with regard to the utilisation of the Helmand River. The outcomes of the research will contribute not only to enriching the existing knowledge of complex hydropolitical dynamics but will also benefit policymaking on water diplomacy and peace building processes for international waters at the regional and global levels, such as the 2030 UN agenda. At the case study level, the research will provide in-depth and updated analytical insight into the Helmand River Basin which suffers from limited evidence-based research. In addition, it is expected that practical insights from the case study will help build guidelines for use in other transboundary river basins

The 150-Year Itch: Afghanistan-Iran Hydropolitics Over the Helmand/ Hirmand River

Reports predict frighteningly serious escalations of the controversy between Afghanistan and its neighbours over transboundary waters. However, a postulated future is not empirical evidence. This paper focuses on Afghanistan’s relations with Iran. It aims to examine the evolution of the hydropolitical relations between Afghanistan and Iran over the Helmand River Basin and to identify where and how changes in the relationship occurred over the past century. The Transboundary Waters Interaction NexuS (TWINS) model is used to map the evolution of hydropolitical relations between the two riparian states. The paper also explores the dynamics of the political relations between the states in order to understand the potential for greater cooperation. While there is a complete disconnect between the two sides in terms of water management, the paper’s historical analysis shows that the frightening claims are not backed by facts on the ground and that they misrepresent the hydropolitical relations as they exist within the broader geopolitical context. The paper concludes that for both Afghanistan and Iran over the period of Western intervention and civil war, the water controversy has constantly been overshadowed by other priority concerns such as security, economy, and the quest for the stabilisation of Afghanistan. Enhanced water cooperation therefore depends on a change in the nature of geopolitical relations between the two countries and on the creation of a collective identity by Afghanistan and Iran over the Helmand River Basin

Water diplomacy in the Helmand River Basin: Exploring the obstacles to cooperation within the shadow of anarchy

Transboundary river basins are by their nature surrounded by political discourses and negotiations associated with the application of legal mechanisms. Although legal frameworks have contributed a great deal to formalizing transboundary water interactions, the potential power of certain legal mechanisms to influence the political dynamics over international waters is understudied. One of the most challenging examples of these issues can be found in the arid region of the Helmand River shared between Afghanistan and Iran. After long term conflicts and negotiations influenced by geopolitical interaction of the “Great Game”, Afghanistan and Iran agreed on a treaty in 1973 to share water of Helmand River. This article examines how the treaty and its considered river basin organization which is called Helmand Water Commission works under a highly geopolitical sensitive condition

The geopolitical overlay of the hydropolitics of the Harirud River Basin

This paper explores the geopolitical overlay that is shaping dynamic hydropolitical interactions of the Harirud River Basin, which is a basin that spans Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan. This paper argues that the control and capture of water resources are not solely for economic development but rather for geopolitical reasons that serve the security interests of the actors involved, particularly outside-basin powers like the US and India. The Afghan Government similarly views dams as symbols of nation-building and a way of staying in power. In the absence of a lasting trilateral agreement, the existing nature of the geopolitical dynamics of the basin has led upstream Afghanistan and downstream Iran and Turkmenistan to unilaterally establish their rights to control the “rules of the game”. This paper suggests that sustainable solutions will not be reached unless the geopolitical nature of the basin and outside interventions can center on a normative understanding of the regional interests, identities, and commonalities of all the riparian states.</p

Decolonising water diplomacy and conflict transformation: from security-peace to equity-identity

Water diplomacy and conflict transformation are dominated by an interest-based paradigm, where attention is given solely to achieving security and peace. We intend to critically challenge this paradigm – which is mainly dominated by the views of the Global North – by emphasising two other important but often overlooked elements: equity and identity. We argue that diplomacy within the contemporary paradigm is easily manipulated by the broader security and peace interests of foreign powers in a manifestation of global and regional geopolitical rivalry. We conclude that pro-security-peace water diplomacy is an inefficacious remedy, and posit instead that equity and particularly identity should be placed at the heart of water diplomacy and conflict transformation. While introducing a new alternative definition, we call for a paradigm shift, from security-peace to equity-identity orientation, to give space for the voice of the Global South in the analysis of hydropolitical relations. This approach affords additional insights into and explanations for hydropolitical patterns, and helps us to define new strategies for decolonising water diplomacy in practice. HIGHLIGHTS For decades, water diplomacy across many transboundary river basins has been articulated as the dominion of the Global North.; Such articulation is largely seen in the context of broader security and peace framework, affected by a long history of colonisation.; Both security and peace in themselves connote vulnerability and a feeling of unsafeness.; The contemporary interest-based water diplomacy fails to capture the realities on the ground by neglecting the river basins' equity and identity politics surrounding water conflicts.; A paradigm shift is required for pro-equity-identity water diplomacy to decolonise the dominant mindset and strengthen the voices of the Global South.

The 150-Year Itch: Afghanistan-Iran Hydropolitics Over the Helmand/ Hirmand River

Reports predict frighteningly serious escalations of the controversy between Afghanistan and its neighbours over transboundary waters. However, a postulated future is not empirical evidence. This paper focuses on Afghanistan’s relations with Iran. It aims to examine the evolution of the hydropolitical relations between Afghanistan and Iran over the Helmand River Basin and to identify where and how changes in the relationship occurred over the past century. The Transboundary Waters Interaction NexuS (TWINS) model is used to map the evolution of hydropolitical relations between the two riparian states. The paper also explores the dynamics of the political relations between the states in order to understand the potential for greater cooperation. While there is a complete disconnect between the two sides in terms of water management, the paper’s historical analysis shows that the frightening claims are not backed by facts on the ground and that they misrepresent the hydropolitical relations as they exist within the broader geopolitical context. The paper concludes that for both Afghanistan and Iran over the period of Western intervention and civil war, the water controversy has constantly been overshadowed by other priority concerns such as security, economy, and the quest for the stabilisation of Afghanistan. Enhanced water cooperation therefore depends on a change in the nature of geopolitical relations between the two countries and on the creation of a collective identity by Afghanistan and Iran over the Helmand River Basin

The Legitimacy of Dam Development in International Watercourses: A Case Study of the Harirud River Basin

This article examines the international legitimacy of unilateral dam development in an international watercourse from the perspective of international water law. Drawing upon technical analysis over the Harirud River Basin, the article discusses probable negative impacts of unilateral dam development in Afghanistan on downstream Iran and Turkmenistan. Competing claims are analyzed to assess emerging transboundary damage under customary international water law. Applying these insights to the case study, this article explores how legal norms and principles can contribute to transboundary water cooperation. It investigates how equitable and reasonable utilization, as required by the United Nations Watercourse Convention, could be reached and whether current activities are in conformity with international norms. Based on this analysis and in the light of international customary law, the article questions the compatibility of unilateral control and capture of water resources in Afghanistan, particularly through the Salma Dam, with ‘equitable and reasonable utilization’ and ‘no significant harm’ rules. The article also argues that building the Salma Dam results in significant transboundary harm to downstream states. Hence, such harm could be considered as significant transboundary damage. Conclusions point to an understanding of water law as a form of institutional guidance in order to provide a transparent setting for transboundary water cooperation among riparian states