Diplomatic water cooperation: the case of Sino-India dispute over Brahmaputra

Original Paper
First Online:
Accepted:
  • 373 Downloads

Abstract

This article adopts the case study of resource management dispute over the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers (GBM) that cross national boundaries between China, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and India. Sino-Indian diplomatic initiatives over the GBM give rise to a complex and unbalanced geographical situation, which presents the need to seek solutions. This article investigates the significance of the arrangement to share hydrological data resulting from Sino-Indian diplomacy. The scope and extent of formalization are key indicators of success in cooperative activity between states. This paper argues that India and China have developed a form of preliminary cooperation through the sharing of water data to resolve disputes. However, the two countries have vested varying interests in the resolution mechanism. No substantial cooperation has been established to tackle conflict resolution and water resource management. This case indicates that relating to the geographical features of the shared river-water resolution is substantially affected by historic tensions.

Keywords

Water resource management China India Institutionalization Conflict resolution 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bandyopadhyay, J., & Ghosh, N. (2009). Holistic engineering and hydro-diplomacy in the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna Basin. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(45), 50–60.Google Scholar
  2. Benvenisti, E. (1996). Collective action in the utilization of shared freshwater: The challenges of international water resources law. American Journal of International Law, 90, 384–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernauer, T. (2002). Explaining success and failure in international river management. Aquatic Science, 64, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernauer, T., & Kalbhenn, A. (2010). The politics of international freshwater resources. In R. Denemark (Ed.), The international studies encyclopaedia 5800–5821. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Bernauer, T., & Siefried, T. (2008). Compliance and performance in international water agreements: The case of the Naryn/Syr Darya Basin. Global Governance, 14, 479–501.Google Scholar
  6. Brochmann, M. & Gleditsch, N. (2006). Shared rivers and international cooperation. Paper presented at the 47th annual convention of the international studies association, San Diego, CA 22–26 March and the workshop “Polarization and conflict,”. Nicosia, Cyprus, April 26–29.Google Scholar
  7. Brochmann, M., & Gleditsch, N. (2012). Shared rivers and conflict—A reconsideration. Political Geography, 31, 519–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brochmann, M., & Hensel, P. (2009). Peaceful management of international river claims. International Negotiation, 14(2), 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burton, M., & Molden, D. J. (2005). Making sound decisions: Information needs for basin management. In M. Svendsen (Ed.), Irrigation and river basin management: Options for governance and institutions (pp. 51–74). Wallingford: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butts, H. (1997). The strategic importance of water’. Parameters, 28(1), 65–83.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, H., Clarke, A., & Wouters, P. (2013). Exploring China’s transboundary water treaty practice through the prism of the UN watercourses Convention. Water International, 38(2), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chow, N. (2010). Water management in Bangladesh: An analytical review. Water policy, 12, 32–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collier, P. (2007). The bottom billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Conca, K., Wu, F., & Mei, C. (2006). Global regime formation or institution building? The principle content of international river agreements. International Studies Quarterly, 50, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahal, S. H., Gazdar, H., Keethaponcalan, S. I., & Murth, P. (2003). Internal conflict and regional security in South Asia: Approaches, perspectives and policies., Geneva: UNIDIR,United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.Google Scholar
  16. Dietz, T., Ostrum, E., & Stern, P. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907–1912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dombrowsky, I. (2003). Water accords in the middle east peace process: Moving towards cooperation? In H. Brauch, P. Liotta, A. Marquina, P. Rogers & M. Selim (Eds.), Security and environment in the mediterranean: Conceptualising security and environmental conflicts (pp. 729–744). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dinar, S. (2009). Scarcity and cooperation along international rivers. Global Environmental Politics, 9(1), 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Downs, G., Rocke, D., & Barsoom, P. (1996). Is the good news about. Compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization, 50, 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischhendler, I. (2008). Ambiguity in transboundary environmental dispute resolution: The Israel-Jordanian water agreement. Journal of Peace Research, 45(1), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox, C., & Sneddon, C. (2007). Transboundary river basin agreements in the Mekong and Zambezi basins: Enhancing environmental security or securitising the environment. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 7(3), 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gerlak, A., Lautze, J., & Giodano, M. (2011). Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties, international environmental agreements. Politics, Law and Economics, 11(2), 179–199.Google Scholar
  23. Gleick, P. (1990). Environment, resources, and international security and politics. In E. Arnett (Ed.), Science and international security: Responding to a changing world (pp. 501–523). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goldstein, J. (1992). A conflict-cooperation scale for WEIS events data. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gupta, A. (2008). Transparency under scrutiny: Information disclosure in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(2), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gupta, J., & van der Zaag, Pieter. (2009). The politics of water science: On unresolved problems and biased research agendas. Global Environmental Politics, 9(2), 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haas, P. (1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution control. International Organization, 43, 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haftendorn, H. (2000). Water and international conflict. Third World Quarterly, 21(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Han, J. (2009). Renewable energy development in China: Policies, practices and performance. Doctoral thesis. Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  30. He, D., Liu, C., Feng, Y., Hu, J., Ji, X., & Li, Y. (2014). Progress and perspective of international river researches in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 69(9), 1284–1294.Google Scholar
  31. Homer-Dixon, T. (1994). Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: Evidence from cases. International Security, 19(1), 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. IDSA. (2010). Water security for India: The external dynamics. IDSA task force report.Google Scholar
  33. Intelligence Community Assessment. (2012). Global water security. IC coordinated paper. http://fas.org/irp/nic/water.pdf.
  34. Karkkainen, B. (2006). Managing transboundary aquatic ecosystems: Lessons from the great lakes. Pacific McGeorge Global Business and Development Law Journal, 19, 209–240.Google Scholar
  35. Khan, T. (1996). Management and sharing of the Ganges. Natural Resources Journal, 36, 455–479.Google Scholar
  36. Li, L. (2009). Military and unconventional security. Jundui yu feichuantong anquan. Beijing: Current Affairs Press.Google Scholar
  37. Li, Q. (2015). Sino-India border dispute is ongoing. Zhongyin bianjie tanpan yiran zai lushang. Zhongguo guofangbao. 31 March.Google Scholar
  38. Lindemann, S. (2008). Understanding water regime formation-a research framework with lessons from Europe. Global Environmental Politics, 8(4), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mason, M. (2008). The governance of transnational environmental harm: Addressing new modes of accountability/responsibility. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mirumachi, N. and Warner, J. 2008. Co-existing conflict and cooperation in transboundary waters. Paper presented at the international studies association annual conference. San Francisco. Mar 26–30.Google Scholar
  41. Mitchell, R., & Keilbach, P. (2001). Situation structure and institutioinal design: Reciprocity, coercion and exchange. International Organization, 55(4), 891–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mitchell, S., & Zawahri, N. (2014). The effectiveness of treaty design in addressing water disputes. Journal of Peace Research, 52(2), 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ovodenko, A. (2014). Regional water cooperation: Creating incentives for integrated management. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1–28.Google Scholar
  44. Panda, J. (2013). Competing realities in China–India multilateral discourse: Asia’s enduring power rivalry. Journal of Contemporary China, 22(82), 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Panda, J. (2015). Future of India–China boundary: Leadership holds the key? Strategic analysis, 39(3), 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Panda, J. (2016). India–China relations: Politics of resource, identity and authority in a multipolar world order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Price, G. (2014). Attitudes to water in South Asia. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  48. Raadgever, G. T., Mostert, E., Kranz, N., Inerwies, E., & Timmerman, J. (2008). Assessing management regimes in transboundary river basins do they support adaptive management? Ecology and Society, 13(1), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rahaman, M. (2009). Integrated Ganges basin management: Conflict and hope for regional development. Water policy, 11, 168–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Salehyan, I. (2008). From climate change to conflict? No consensus yet. Journal of Peace Research, 45(3), 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Salman, S. (2006). A new breed of claims, claimants, and settlement institutions. Water International, 31(1), 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Salman, S. (2010). Downstream riparians can also harm upstream riparians: The concept of foreclosure of future uses. Water International, 35(4), 350–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Selby, J. (2003). Water, power and politics in the Middle East: The other Israeli–Palestinian conflict. London: I B Tauris and Co Ltd.Google Scholar
  54. Song, J., & Whittington, D. (2004). Why have some countries on international rivers been successful negotiating treaties? A global perspective. Water Resources Research, 40(5), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sood, A., & Mathukumalli, B. K. P. (2011). Managing international river basins: Reviewing India–Bangladesh transboundary water issues. International Journal of River Basin Management, 9(1), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sosland, J. (2007). Cooperating rivals: The riparian politics of the Jordan River basin. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  57. Stinnett, D., & Tir, J. (2009). The institutionalization of river treaties. International Negotiation, 14, 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stobdan, P. (2013). BDCA with China and its implications for India. IDSA comment, 29 October, http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/BDCAwithChinaanditsImplicationsforIndia_pstobdan_291013.html.
  59. Timmerman, J. (2004). Incorporating user needs into environmental information systems. In J. Timmerman & S. Langaas (Eds.), Environmental information in European transboundary water management. London: IWA Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. Tir, J., & Ackerman, J. (2009). Politics of formalized river cooperation. Journal of Peace Research, 46(5), 623–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Turton, A., Ashton, P., & Cloete, E. (Eds.). (2003). An introduction to the hydropoligical drivers in the Okavango River Basin. In Transboundary rivers, sovereignty and development: Hydropolitical drivers in the Okavango River Basin. Pretoria: AWIRU.Google Scholar
  62. VanDeveer, S. (2002). Changing course to protect European Seas: Lessons after 25 years. Environment, 42(6), 10–26.Google Scholar
  63. von Stein, J. (2008). The international law and politics of climate change: Ratification of the united nations framework convention and the Kyoto protocol. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waterbury, J. (1997). Between unilateralism and comprehensive accords: Modest steps toward cooperation in international river basins. Water Resources Development, 13(3), 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolf, A., Kranmer, A., Carius, A., & Dabelko, D. (2005). Managing water conflict and cooperation. In A. Wolf (Ed.), State of the world: Defining global security. The WorldWatch Institute: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  66. Xie, L. (2009). Environmental activism in China. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Xie, L. (2014). Social movements and political citizenship in China. In H. A. van der Heijden (Ed.), Political citizenship and social movements. Elgar Original Reference series: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Xie, L., & van der Heijden, H. (2010). Environmental movements and political opportunities: The case of China. Social Movement Studies, 9, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yoffe, S., & Larson, K. (2002). Basins at risk: Water event database methodology, in Basins at risk: Conflict and cooperation over international freshwater resources. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  70. Yoffe, S., Wolf, A., & Giordano, M. (2003). Managing water conflict and cooperation. Chap 5 in redefining global security. The state of the world report. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.Google Scholar
  71. Zawahri, N. (2008). Designing river commissions to implement treaties and manage international rivers. Water International, 33(4), 464–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zawahri, N. (2009). Third party mediation of international river disputes. International Negotiation, 14(2), 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Exeter in CorwallCornwallUK
  2. 2.Academy of SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations