18
3 Theories of Conflict and Cooperation Over …
states over water resources that transcend international borders”, commonly referred
to as hydropolitics (Elhance 1999).
Within the first generation of hydropolitical studies two distinct schools of thought
emerged: one concentrating on the potential of conflicts triggered by competition for
water and one focusing on the cooperation imperative over transboundary water
resources. Over time, the initial “water wars” literature has largely been proven
unfounded by the relatively low number of water-related interstate incidents and
the growing number of cooperative arrangements worldwide. Yet, the so-called
institutionalist approach—underlining the importance of formal cooperative
arrangements—has also failed to provide a comprehensive explanation of the grossly
divergent quality of co-riparian relations. More recently, a new wave of research has
emerged with a view to overcoming the conflict and cooperation divide. Scholars
of this branch recognise the inherent complexity of water relations, underlining that
conflict and cooperation are not necessarily contradictory, but can occur simultaneously (Schmeier 2013).
3.2.2 Theoretical Foundations: Realism, Liberalism
and the Management of Transboundary Water
Resources
3.2.2.1 Realism and Neorealism: Cooperation as an Anomaly
The realist and neorealist schools of international relations are based on the proposition that interstate relations are fundamentally anarchical in nature as countries
are driven by egoism, the need for survival and power (Goodin 2010). States are
considered rational actors, although their behaviour largely reflects human nature.
Short of an overarching global authority states are left to their own devices, a condition that favours self-help, suspicion and insecurity. Under these circumstances
international relations are nothing, but a constant struggle for power and relative
gains. In this harsh environment, cooperation is an anomaly. Therefore, cooperation
only emerges where a regional power takes the initiative to formulate a cooperative
regime on its own terms (hegemonic stability theory). Cooperation arrangements
may be concluded in the absence of a regional hegemon too. They will, however, be
a mere reflection of the existing distribution of power. Cooperation may also emerge
where the agreement favours the participants in equal measure, but that is considered
an exception (Dinar 2008).
The realist approach towards transboundary water governance is eloquently formulated by Lord Birdwood, a senior British colonial army officer, who in 1954
summed up the political character of co-riparian relations as a zero-sum game burdened with suspicion and distrust as follows
3 Theories of Conflict and Cooperation Over …
states over water resources that transcend international borders”, commonly referred
to as hydropolitics (Elhance 1999).
Within the first generation of hydropolitical studies two distinct schools of thought
emerged: one concentrating on the potential of conflicts triggered by competition for
water and one focusing on the cooperation imperative over transboundary water
resources. Over time, the initial “water wars” literature has largely been proven
unfounded by the relatively low number of water-related interstate incidents and
the growing number of cooperative arrangements worldwide. Yet, the so-called
institutionalist approach—underlining the importance of formal cooperative
arrangements—has also failed to provide a comprehensive explanation of the grossly
divergent quality of co-riparian relations. More recently, a new wave of research has
emerged with a view to overcoming the conflict and cooperation divide. Scholars
of this branch recognise the inherent complexity of water relations, underlining that
conflict and cooperation are not necessarily contradictory, but can occur simultaneously (Schmeier 2013).
3.2.2 Theoretical Foundations: Realism, Liberalism
and the Management of Transboundary Water
Resources
3.2.2.1 Realism and Neorealism: Cooperation as an Anomaly
The realist and neorealist schools of international relations are based on the proposition that interstate relations are fundamentally anarchical in nature as countries
are driven by egoism, the need for survival and power (Goodin 2010). States are
considered rational actors, although their behaviour largely reflects human nature.
Short of an overarching global authority states are left to their own devices, a condition that favours self-help, suspicion and insecurity. Under these circumstances
international relations are nothing, but a constant struggle for power and relative
gains. In this harsh environment, cooperation is an anomaly. Therefore, cooperation
only emerges where a regional power takes the initiative to formulate a cooperative
regime on its own terms (hegemonic stability theory). Cooperation arrangements
may be concluded in the absence of a regional hegemon too. They will, however, be
a mere reflection of the existing distribution of power. Cooperation may also emerge
where the agreement favours the participants in equal measure, but that is considered
an exception (Dinar 2008).
The realist approach towards transboundary water governance is eloquently formulated by Lord Birdwood, a senior British colonial army officer, who in 1954
summed up the political character of co-riparian relations as a zero-sum game burdened with suspicion and distrust as follows