5. What is behind water conflict and cooperation?

​In stark contrast to the steady stream of predictions of water warfare, the historical records tell a different story. Conflicts over water do emerge and give rise to political tensions, but most disputes are resolved peacefully.
​If conflict is the exception to the rule, how do countries cooperate? Of 263 international water basins, 157 have no cooperative framework at all. It shows that most cooperation is quite shallow. Where such cooperation does exist it tends to be bilateral rather than multilateral. What are the reasons for conflict and what are the obstacles to deeper cooperation?

​A pair of opposite theories in international river dispute settlement may explain this.

One is absolute state sovereignty (Harmon Doctrine). In disputes over shared rivers with Mexico, the United States adopted this doctrine in 1895. It advocated that, in the absence of contrary legislation, states should be free to use the water resources in their jurisdiction without regard to effects beyond their borders. The other is absolute territorial integrity. This essentially competing principle suggests that downstream states have the right to receive the natural flow (that is, undisturbed river flow) of a river from upstream.

These two controversial theories might contribute to the 28% conflictive rate of the water events captured in TFDD from 1948-1999.

In practices most accepted by international lawyers are absolutist (neither absolute sovereignty nor absolute territorial integrity) approaches to be an unhelpful guide to policy design. After decades of consideration, principles for sharing water were codified in the UN Convention for the Non-Navigational Use of international Watercourses; the convention ignores the national sovereignty but focuses on the right of participation. The core principles are “equitable and reasonable utilization” which those upstream prefer and “no significant harm” which those downstream prefer.

In 1997, The UN Assembly adopted this convention by 103 votes in favor with only 3 against (Turkey, China, and Burundi) and with 27 abstentions. But the convention is still not being enforced due to an unqualified number of ratifications (the convention needs 35 nations’ ratification). The difficulty associated with competing principles and the concern over national sovereignty helps to explain why only 25 countries are parties to the UN convention. And interestingly, the conflict event rate has risen since the “soft law” was adopted: according to TFDD，there was a rate of 33% for conflictive events from 2000 to 2008 compared to 28% 1948-1999.

The 1997 Convention hopes to balance the two controversial principles, but obviously, it has failed. The world society still lacks the key to unlock water disputes. Perhaps the most important thing that nations want to ensure is the right, not the right of participation but the property right of river discharge of they should hold. And this topic, water right of International River, is becoming increasingly emergency issue facing international water lawyer, eco-hydrologist and environmental scientist.