This thesis examines the significance of a micro-level approach to the Israeli-Palestinian water conflict. By rethinking scale of analysis and examining local insecurities, Palestinian experiences reveal how water conflict plays out in latent and discursive ways. In a step-by-step method, I detail the processes and outcomes of the water struggle in the West Bank. First, I show how technical challenges ((i) poor water supply, (ii) antiquated water infrastructure, (iii) failed institutions) are shaped by political imperatives. Second, I show how Palestinians have responded to local water sector challenges: (iv) nonpayment to the Palestinian Water Authority for their water supply, (v) increasing rural to urban migration by Palestinian farmers. As a result, Palestinian society is stuck in cycles of crisis that make the conditions increasingly ungovernable. While Palestinians are stuck in a mode of ungovernability, their position in the peace process with Israel is undermined.

Este trabalho tem como objetivo analisar o conflito diplomático ocorrido entre Brasil e Paraguai nos anos de 2008 e 2009, entendendo-o como um evento que contesta a hidrohegemonia brasileira. As bases teóricas desta pesquisa são conceitos e teorias da geografia política com ênfase na teoria da hidropolítica e no conceito de hidro-hegemonia. A metodologia está baseada em pesquisa bibliográfica, documental e entrevistas. Sob a perspectiva da hidropolítica o conflito diplomático analisado é um evento que compõe o processo de disputa pelo domínio dos recursos hídricos transfronteiriços do rio Paraná. Contextualizamos a origem da Itaipu Binacional no processo de disputa entre Brasil e Paraguai pelo domínio desses recursos hídricos transfronteiriços como uma solução interdependente para problemas interdependentes entre Estados vizinhos. Até a ratificação do Tratado de Itaipu a hidro-hegemonia brasileira estava consolidada por meio do controle físico do fluxo hídrico da bacia do Alto Paraná. Após a ratificação desse tratado o Brasil consolida o controle normativo do fluxo hídrico, posto que as bases deste Tratado são as assimetrias existentes entre os Estados. O conflito ocorrido entre 2008 e 2009 buscou reorientar a relação bilateral, com a contestação do exercício do poder material para a superação das divergências na Itaipu Binacional. Isto foi possível por meio do fortalecimento do poder ideacional paraguaio e o consequente fortalecimento do seu poder de negociação. / This work aims to analyze the diplomatic conflict occurred between Brazil and Paraguay in 2008 and 2009, understanding it as an event that challenges the Brazilian hydro-hegemony. The theoretical bases of this research are concepts and theories of political geography with an emphasis on Hydropolitics theory and hydro-hegemony concept. The methodology is based on bibliographical research, documents and interviews. From the perspective of the Hydropolitics this diplomatic conflict is an event that integrates the dispute process to dominate the transboundary water resources of the Parana River. The origin of Itaipu Binacional is contextualized in the process of dispute between Brazil and Paraguay for dominance of these transboundary water resources as an interdependent solution to interdependent problems between neighboring states. Until the ratification of the Itaipu Treaty Brazilian hydro-hegemony was consolidated through physical control of the water flow in the Upper Paraná basin. After the ratification of this treaty Brazil consolidates the regulatory control of the water flow, since the basis of this Treaty are the existing asymmetries between the states. The conflict occurred between 2008 and 2009 sought to reorient the bilateral relationship with the challenge of the exercise of the material power to overcome the divergences in Itaipu. This was possible through the strengthening of the Paraguayan ideational power and the consequent strengthening of their bargaining power.

Este trabalho tem como objetivo analisar o conflito diplomático ocorrido entre Brasil e Paraguai nos anos de 2008 e 2009, entendendo-o como um evento que contesta a hidrohegemonia brasileira. As bases teóricas desta pesquisa são conceitos e teorias da geografia política com ênfase na teoria da hidropolítica e no conceito de hidro-hegemonia. A metodologia está baseada em pesquisa bibliográfica, documental e entrevistas. Sob a perspectiva da hidropolítica o conflito diplomático analisado é um evento que compõe o processo de disputa pelo domínio dos recursos hídricos transfronteiriços do rio Paraná. Contextualizamos a origem da Itaipu Binacional no processo de disputa entre Brasil e Paraguai pelo domínio desses recursos hídricos transfronteiriços como uma solução interdependente para problemas interdependentes entre Estados vizinhos. Até a ratificação do Tratado de Itaipu a hidro-hegemonia brasileira estava consolidada por meio do controle físico do fluxo hídrico da bacia do Alto Paraná. Após a ratificação desse tratado o Brasil consolida o controle normativo do fluxo hídrico, posto que as bases deste Tratado são as assimetrias existentes entre os Estados. O conflito ocorrido entre 2008 e 2009 buscou reorientar a relação bilateral, com a contestação do exercício do poder material para a superação das divergências na Itaipu Binacional. Isto foi possível por meio do fortalecimento do poder ideacional paraguaio e o consequente fortalecimento do seu poder de negociação. / This work aims to analyze the diplomatic conflict occurred between Brazil and Paraguay in 2008 and 2009, understanding it as an event that challenges the Brazilian hydro-hegemony. The theoretical bases of this research are concepts and theories of political geography with an emphasis on Hydropolitics theory and hydro-hegemony concept. The methodology is based on bibliographical research, documents and interviews. From the perspective of the Hydropolitics this diplomatic conflict is an event that integrates the dispute process to dominate the transboundary water resources of the Parana River. The origin of Itaipu Binacional is contextualized in the process of dispute between Brazil and Paraguay for dominance of these transboundary water resources as an interdependent solution to interdependent problems between neighboring states. Until the ratification of the Itaipu Treaty Brazilian hydro-hegemony was consolidated through physical control of the water flow in the Upper Paraná basin. After the ratification of this treaty Brazil consolidates the regulatory control of the water flow, since the basis of this Treaty are the existing asymmetries between the states. The conflict occurred between 2008 and 2009 sought to reorient the bilateral relationship with the challenge of the exercise of the material power to overcome the divergences in Itaipu. This was possible through the strengthening of the Paraguayan ideational power and the consequent strengthening of their bargaining power.

The aim of this essay is to examine how the foreign relationships of Ethiopia has developed as a result of the construction and filling of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam between 2011 and 2021. This essay therefore asks: How has Ethiopia’s foreign relations with the EU, Egypt, Sudan and China changed, have those relationships become more conflictual or cooperative, and how could potential changes be explained using a constructivist perspective? Constructivism is used as a means of explaining changes in the statements, positions and policies of these countries through concepts such as “norms” and “identities”. It additionally utilizes concepts from other studies such as “Hydro-hegemony”, “Benefit Sharing” and “Ethiopian renaissance”. It uses the BAR-scale from Wolf et al. (2003) to determine the different stages of Ethiopia’s relationships. The study concludes that Ethiopia’s relationship with the EU and China have progressed positively as a result of the GERD, and they have now started considering Ethiopia a more equitable partner for further cooperation. The relationship with Egypt and Sudan initially improved, with new Ethiopian norms of cooperation and equitable utilization becoming mainstay. However, Ethiopia’s unilateral action during recent events broke these norms, and has turned the relations conflictual once again.