Recent transboundary disputes between the United States and Canada and in particular, the dispute concerning Devils Lake outlet, call for an improvement of the agreements between the two countries that govern North American international watercourses. One way to do so is by assimilating the cooperative spirit contained in the more recent 1997 U.N. International Watercourses Convention and incorporating its guidelines for balancing different principles and interests into the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between the United States and Canada. This paper analyzes the different theories and main international legal instruments in the area of transboundary waters within the context of the issues arising out of Devils Lake and its outlet. It is proposed that the Boundary Waters Treaty be vastly improved by increasing the participation of both the Canadian provinces and the American states as well as renewing and enhancing the role of the International Joint Commission.

Recent transboundary disputes between the United States and Canada and in particular, the dispute concerning Devils Lake outlet, call for an improvement of the agreements between the two countries that govern North American international watercourses. One way to do so is by assimilating the cooperative spirit contained in the more recent 1997 U.N. International Watercourses Convention and incorporating its guidelines for balancing different principles and interests into the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between the United States and Canada. This paper analyzes the different theories and main international legal instruments in the area of transboundary waters within the context of the issues arising out of Devils Lake and its outlet. It is proposed that the Boundary Waters Treaty be vastly improved by increasing the participation of both the Canadian provinces and the American states as well as renewing and enhancing the role of the International Joint Commission.

My thesis research provides an alternative argument for the protection of the wilderness that extends far beyond that of the purely biological and instead looks at wilderness for the intrinsic value, focusing on the social and cultural aspects. Through an ethnographic approach, I uncovered the how, why, and in what context people connect with wilderness and how people lean on these experiences. Through analysis of the interviews and data that was collected, I was able to identify tangible and intangible values associated with wilderness exploration and understand how these social and cultural aspects manifest themselves in people's day-to-day lives.

Ring-width chronologies from Pinus resinosa Ait., Pinus strobus L., and Thuja occidentalis L. were developed in two areas of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness to assess their growth climate response and their potential for developing reconstructions of climate. New red pine chronologies were combined with existing chronologies to extend the ring-width record both into the past and into the present. Ring-width response to climate, assessed using correlation analysis and response functions, was broadly similar among all three species with relatively significant positive relationships with June–July precipitation and significant negative (but less consistent) associations with June–July temperatures (p < 0.05). White-cedar appeared to have a broader phenological window of response with a stronger spring influence when compared to other species included in this study. Comparisons with other nearby proxies showed relatively strong coherence overall but with some important regional differences. Overall, these species may be useful for placing current climatic patterns in the Boundary Waters within a longer term perspective but care should be taken with respect to identifying appropriate climatic records for calibration.

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.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Montana, 2008. / Title from title screen. Description based on contents viewed May 7, 2009. Includes bibliographical references (p. 171-180).

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

Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Montana, 2008. / Title from author supplied metadata. Description based on contents viewed on July 6, 2009. Includes bibliographical references.