No description available.

The Devils Lake defection of 2005 demands a re-evaluation of the venerable Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT) between Canada and the United States. Why was the long-successful water agreement unable to solve this relatively minor dispute? More importantly, given irregularities between theoretical assertions and institutional history, what theory of international relations best explains a cooperative agreement that spans a near-century? Due to the complexities of shared river systems, any theory that seeks to explain international cooperation must adequately encompass three separate sources of state motivation. First, it must explain the technical, basin-position-driven realities that affect state attitudes towards negotiations. Second, it must explain the longer-term strategic factors that can inspire states to accept immediate losses for subsequent gains. Finally, it must acknowledge domestic sources of influence and understand how these forces constrain the state vis-à-vis others. This paper argues that liberalism, as defined by Andrew Moravcsik, is the best theoretical candidate. This is proven by comparing interpretations of the BWT history through realist, neoliberal, constructivist, and liberal lenses. After identifying and examining each theory's strengths and weaknesses, liberalism emerges as the most holistic view and should be favoured as a primary explanatory theory. Liberalism's theoretical underpinnings – interest group politics – best handles the technical, strategic, and domestic influences that affect Canada-US water relations. Whether examining what prompted efforts to initiate a water-sharing agreement, explaining the agreement's final structure, determining the impetus for continued cooperation, or identifying the incentives to finally break from treaty obligations, liberalism provides the most satisfying solutions. Though derived from the Canada-US border relationship, liberalism's superiority is not limited to the North American watershed. Because the factors examined are common to all shared international river systems and the paper's results are scalable, this suggests that liberalism will continue to be the appropriate primary IR theory to employ when examining state decision-making regarding water-sharing agreements.

The Devils Lake defection of 2005 demands a re-evaluation of the venerable Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT) between Canada and the United States. Why was the long-successful water agreement unable to solve this relatively minor dispute? More importantly, given irregularities between theoretical assertions and institutional history, what theory of international relations best explains a cooperative agreement that spans a near-century? Due to the complexities of shared river systems, any theory that seeks to explain international cooperation must adequately encompass three separate sources of state motivation. First, it must explain the technical, basin-position-driven realities that affect state attitudes towards negotiations. Second, it must explain the longer-term strategic factors that can inspire states to accept immediate losses for subsequent gains. Finally, it must acknowledge domestic sources of influence and understand how these forces constrain the state vis-à-vis others. This paper argues that liberalism, as defined by Andrew Moravcsik, is the best theoretical candidate. This is proven by comparing interpretations of the BWT history through realist, neoliberal, constructivist, and liberal lenses. After identifying and examining each theory's strengths and weaknesses, liberalism emerges as the most holistic view and should be favoured as a primary explanatory theory. Liberalism's theoretical underpinnings – interest group politics – best handles the technical, strategic, and domestic influences that affect Canada-US water relations. Whether examining what prompted efforts to initiate a water-sharing agreement, explaining the agreement's final structure, determining the impetus for continued cooperation, or identifying the incentives to finally break from treaty obligations, liberalism provides the most satisfying solutions. Though derived from the Canada-US border relationship, liberalism's superiority is not limited to the North American watershed. Because the factors examined are common to all shared international river systems and the paper's results are scalable, this suggests that liberalism will continue to be the appropriate primary IR theory to employ when examining state decision-making regarding water-sharing agreements.

The Devils Lake defection of 2005 demands a re-evaluation of the venerable Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT) between Canada and the United States. Why was the long-successful water agreement unable to solve this relatively minor dispute? More importantly, given irregularities between theoretical assertions and institutional history, what theory of international relations best explains a cooperative agreement that spans a near-century? Due to the complexities of shared river systems, any theory that seeks to explain international cooperation must adequately encompass three separate sources of state motivation. First, it must explain the technical, basin-position-driven realities that affect state attitudes towards negotiations. Second, it must explain the longer-term strategic factors that can inspire states to accept immediate losses for subsequent gains. Finally, it must acknowledge domestic sources of influence and understand how these forces constrain the state vis-à-vis others. This paper argues that liberalism, as defined by Andrew Moravcsik, is the best theoretical candidate. This is proven by comparing interpretations of the BWT history through realist, neoliberal, constructivist, and liberal lenses. After identifying and examining each theory's strengths and weaknesses, liberalism emerges as the most holistic view and should be favoured as a primary explanatory theory. Liberalism's theoretical underpinnings – interest group politics – best handles the technical, strategic, and domestic influences that affect Canada-US water relations. Whether examining what prompted efforts to initiate a water-sharing agreement, explaining the agreement's final structure, determining the impetus for continued cooperation, or identifying the incentives to finally break from treaty obligations, liberalism provides the most satisfying solutions. Though derived from the Canada-US border relationship, liberalism's superiority is not limited to the North American watershed. Because the factors examined are common to all shared international river systems and the paper's results are scalable, this suggests that liberalism will continue to be the appropriate primary IR theory to employ when examining state decision-making regarding water-sharing agreements. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

This research set out to develop a deeper theoretical component to the emerging discipline of hydropolitics by studying the political aspects of institutional developments in the water sector. The focal point was the four international river basins that are shared between South Africa and six of its neighbouring states. The study found that while there is a lot of evidence for the securitization of water resource management in South Africa’s international river basins, there are also a number of examples of regimes. The creation of these regimes was driven primarily by threat perceptions relating to state security, mostly during the period of apartheid and the Cold War. These regimes were mostly robust and served as a valuable instrument for the de-escalation of conflict, which was primarily of a high politics nature. Examples of both plus-sum and zero-sum outcomes have been isolated. Plus-sum outcomes arose when the non-hegemonic state chose to view the offer of a regime in terms of national self-interest with four examples of this condition. In all four cases the non-hegemonic state benefited from cooperation with South Africa. Zero-sum outcomes arose when the non-hegemonic state chose to view the offer of a regime in terms of ideology with two examples of this condition. In both cases the non-hegemonic state did not benefit and was sidelined to the extent that they became marginalized and worse off than before. In all cases the hegemonic state benefited from the regime. The research consequently showed that a hydropolitical complex is emerging in Southern Africa, clustered around two international river basins, the Orange and Limpopo, which have been defined as pivotal basins. Both of these basins have reached the limit of their readily available water resources and future development is not possible on any great scale. Four of the most economically developed states in Southern Africa (Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa) are riparians on these two international river basins, and have been defined as pivotal states. Other less developed countries that share any international river basin with a pivotal state have been defined as an impacted state, because their own development aspirations have been capped through this association. Any international river basin that has at least one of the pivotal states in it has been defined an impacted basin. Finally, this research showed that regimes create a plus-sum outcome in closed international river basins because they reduce the levels of uncertainty and institutionalize the conflict potential. As such regimes are a useful instrument with which to regulate inter-state behavior, leading over time to the development of institutions consisting of rules and procedures. / Thesis (DPhil (International Politics))--University of Pretoria, 2005. / Political Sciences / unrestricted

水資源是人類生存及文明延續關鍵，雖然海洋佔有地球表面積約百分之七十，但可直接供應人類生養淡水卻極為有限。隨著世界人口持續增長、工商業發展迅速，全球水資源需求量不斷攀升，加以時空分配不均、氣候變遷等因素，引發旱澇災情加劇，進而威脅民生用水、農漁糧食、疾病衛生、社區遷徙及能源供應等安全，導致國家政經社會動盪，尤其是人口密集的亞洲地區多屬開發中國家，仰賴水資源獲取足夠糧食及經濟發展所需能源，再者，亞洲地區數條重要江河跨越數個國家地域，連接維繫流域內國家命脈及利益，惟各國對於國際河流治理政策及目標卻存在紛歧差異性而屢生爭議、矛盾，因此，國際河流所涉及水資源問題具有重要性及複雜性，若未能妥適紓解，則可能引發國際衝突而危及國家安全。 2009年中國水資源最豐沛的西南地區連續乾旱，中國為紓解水資源匱乏的嚴重性及急迫性，積極修建水壩以維繫水資源安全，卻引發與下游國家間跨境水資源衝突，中國在面臨境內水資源短缺危機，以及與鄰國共用治理國際河流二者衝突，都是當今非傳統安全領域的重要課題。湄公河是亞洲地區重要國際水系，流域遍及中國、寮國、緬甸、泰國、柬埔寨及越南等六個國家，富含水力動能及自然資源，然而，流域內各國政經體制、民族文化差異極大，對於水電開發、航道通商、農漁發展及生態維護各有主張而扞格爭嚷互見，衝突並不意味毫無合作契機，本文認為中國兼具地理及政經大國的優勢地位，水資源政策及執行往往引發鄰國諸多猜忌不安，又國際河流開發使用及管理約制，常事涉國家主權讓渡而難獲共識，但藉由水資源多層次規劃開發及協商管理，不僅能維護中國利益安全，同時，伴隨水電、航運建設所帶來鉅大經濟利益，也提供諸國亟欲脫貧的契機，進而促進地區安全。 / Water is indispensable to human life and civilization. We all know that the earth surface is composed of sea water by nearly 70%, but what we don’t know is freshwater on the rest 30% of the world is limited for human usage. With continuously rising population and rapid growth in economy, people’s demands for water is getting more and more intensive than that decades ago. Drought and flood damage caused by climate change affect water supply, agriculture and food safety, diseases and hygiene, even threaten national security in each country. Densely populated countries in Asia depend on water heavily for economic development, but major rivers running through those nation borders and territories complicate their political and diplomatic relations. Conflicts resulted from water resource management and national interests follow suit, which may escalate tension if not been dealt properly. In 2009, China’s southwest region was severely hit by droughts. Dams were needed for relieving the water shortage problem, but the construction in major rivers triggered China’s conflicts with countries in the downstream territories due to water resource distribution. Among these disputes, Mekong River, an international river flowing through China, Liao, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam stood out. Each related nation has its own political considerations and economic plans with this river, and their exploitation policies were diverse. Seeing crisis of water shortage at home and conflicts resulted from water management with its neighbors outside, China was in a dilemma. However, contentions could create opportunities for cooperation. This paper tries to find the answer. It suggests that since China holds a geopolitical significance and economic dominance in the southwestern part of Asia, it can maintain its own security and interests by coming up comprehensive water exploitation policies and seek bilateral and multilateral water resource management with neighboring countries simultaneously, so as to bring in huge benefits on the one hand and acts as a responsible stakeholder in the area in promoting peace solution and stability on the other hand.