Making Use of Paradoxes: Law, Transboundary Hydropower Dams and Beyond the Technical

Article

Abstract

Law’s regulation of transboundary hydropower dams is a field of study brimming with paradoxes. The most notable being the paradox of a hydropower dam solving one problem and creating another. From a logical perspective, such a paradox would typically be viewed as an obstacle to be avoided because it brings everything to a standstill. But from a social perspective, paradoxes are not necessarily negative, as managing them also potentially enlightens and transforms planning systems. The latter perspective, which brings to analysis a kind of dynamism, is employed in this text. In order to work out the reoccurring patterns under which law might productively make use of paradoxes, this text therefore proposes the methodological tools of exposing and building upon paradoxes. Exposing paradoxes sets out to make more visible some of the unthought limitations, self-deceptions and self-contradictions which arise in modern planning practices, while building upon paradoxes attempts to open up headways towards a more adequate conceptualisation of the solutions which law can offer. The overall intention here being to offer a Luhmannian-inspired theoretical framework which illuminates the value of social systems theory as a methodological tool for describing the communicative challenges facing law’s regulation of transboundary hydropower power dams.

Keywords

Hydropower dams Law Niklas Luhmann Paradoxes Planning systems Social systems theory 

References

  1. Alexander, David, and Véronique Blum. 2016. Ecological economics: A Luhmannian analysis of integrated reporting. Ecological Economics 129: 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allmendinger, Philip. 2002. Planning theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barret, Scott. 2003. Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bond, Patrick. 2012. The right to the city and the eco-social communing of water: Discursive and political lessons from South Africa. In The right to water: Politics, governance, and social struggles, ed. Farhana Sultana, and Alex Loftus, 190–205. New York: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  6. Ciampi, Marina. 2013. ‘Water divide’ in the global risk society. International Review of Sociology 23 (1): 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, Bruce. 2014. Systems, media, narrative: From the trace to the telepathic imaginary. In Neocybernetics and narrative, ed. Gary Wolfe. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  8. D’Amato, Anthony. 2009. Softness in international law: A self-serving quest for new legal materials: A reply to Jean d’Aspremont. European Journal of International Law 20 (3): 1057–1093.Google Scholar
  9. Dinar, Shlomi. 2006. Assessing side-payment and cost-sharing patterns in international water agreements: The geographic and economic connection. Political Geography 25 (4): 412–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eichert, Sara. 2014. NGOs as strategic actors in the promotion of sustainable dam development. In Evolution of dam policies: Evidence from the big hydropower states, ed. Waltina Scheumann, and Oliver Hensengerth, 173–200. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Firuz, Paul A. 2012. Looking forward: The Columbia river treaty. Washington Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 2 (1): 170–192.Google Scholar
  12. Fischer-Lescano, Andreas, and Gunther Teubner. 2004. Regime-collisions: The vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of globlal law. Michigan Journal of International Law 25 (4): 999–1046.Google Scholar
  13. Fuchs, Stephan. 1999. Niklas Luhmann. Sociological Theory 17 (1): 117–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groenfeldt, David. 2013. Water ethics: A values approach to solving the water crisis. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Hepler, Thomas E. 2006. Overview of proposed USSD guidelines on dam decommissioning: Bureau of reclamation, in the role of dams in the 21st century. http://geotechpedia.com/Publication/Show/2806/OVERVIEW-OF-PROPOSED-USSD-GUIDELINES--ON-DAM-DECOMMISSIONING. Accessed 28 March 2017.
  16. Hofstadter, Douglas. 2007. I am a strange loop. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Holmes, Pablo. 2011. Rhetoric of legal fragmentation and its discontents. Evolutionary dilemmas in the constitutional semantics of global law. Utrecht Law Review 7: 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howe, Charles W., and John A. Dixon. 1993. Inefficiencies in water project design and operation in the third world: An economic perspective. Water Resources Research 29 (7): 1889–1894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Imhof, Aviva, and Guy Lanza. 2010. Greenwashing hydropower: The problems with big dams. World Watch Magazine 23 (1): 8–17.Google Scholar
  20. International Court of Justice. 2010. Case concerning pulp mills on the river Uruguay (Argentina/Uruguay). Judgment of 20 April 2010, ICJ reports 2010. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/135/15877.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2017.
  21. International Rivers. 2012. Infrastructure for whom? A critique of the infrastructure strategies of the Group of 20 and the World Bank. International rivers. https://www.internationalrivers.org/sites/default/files/attached-files/infrastructure_for_whom_report.pdf. Accessed 16 Oct 2016.
  22. Jakobsson, Eva. 2002. Industrialization of rivers: A water system approach to hydropower development. Knowledge, Technology, & Policy 14 (4): 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jessop, Bob. 2012. Obstacles to a world state in the shadow of the world market. Cooperation and Conflict 47 (2): 200–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kerwer, Dieter. 2004. Governance in a world society: The perspective of systems theory. In Observing international relations: Niklas Luhmann and world politics, ed. M. Albert, and L. Hilkermeier, 196–207. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Kessler, Oliver. 2009. Toward a sociology of the international? International relations between anarchy and world society. International Political Sociology 3 (1): 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, Joohyung. 2015. The social and the political in Luhmann. Contemporary Political Theory 14 (4): 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. King, Michael. 2009. Systems, not people, make society happen. Wilmington, DC: Holcombe Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. King, Michael, and Chris Thornhill. 2003. Niklas Luhmann’s theory of politics and law. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koskenniemi, Martti. 1996. The place of law in collective security. Michigan Journal of International Law 17.Google Scholar
  30. Luhmann, Niklas. 1976. The future cannot begin: Temporal structures in modern society. Social Research 43 (1): 130–152.Google Scholar
  31. Luhmann, Niklas. 1982. The world society as a social system. International Journal of General Systems 8 (3): 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luhmann, Niklas. 1989. Ecological communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Luhmann, Niklas. 1990a. Political theory in the welfare state. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  34. Luhmann, Niklas. 1990b. Sthenography. Stanford Literature Review 7: 137.Google Scholar
  35. Luhmann, Niklas. 1993. Risk: A sociological theory. Trans. R. Barret. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  36. Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Social systems. Trans. John Bednarz, and Dirk Baecker. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Luhmann, Niklas. 1997. Globalization or world society: How to conceive of modern society? International review of sociology 7 (1): 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luhmann, Niklas. 1998. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft: The Society of Society. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  39. Luhmann, Niklas. 1999. Politique et complexité. Paris: CERF.Google Scholar
  40. Luhmann, Niklas. 2000. Organisation und entscheidung [organization and decision]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Luhmann, Niklas. 2004. Law as a social system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Luhmann, Niklas. 2012. Theory of society (Volume 1). Trans. Rhodes Barret. Cultural memory in the present. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Luhmann, Niklas. 2013. A sociological theory of law 2. Routledge: Aufl. Glasshouse Books.Google Scholar
  44. Magsig, Bjorn-Oliver. 2011. Overcoming state-centrism in international water law: Regional common concern as the normative foundation of water security. Goettingen Journal of International Law 3: 317.Google Scholar
  45. Mathias, Albert, and Lena Hilkermeier. ed. 2004. Organizations in/and world society: A theoretical prolegomenon. In Observing international relations. Niklas Luhmann and world politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela. 1987. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: New Science Library/Shambhala Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Moeller, Hans-Georg. 2005. Luhmann explained: From souls to systems. Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Nassehi, Armin. 2002. Politik des staates oder politik der gesellschaft? Kollektivität als problemformel des politischen. In Theorie der politik, ed. K.U. Hellmann, and R. Schmalz-Bruns. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  49. Opitz, Sven, and Ute Tellmann. 2014. Future emergencies: Temporal politics in law and economy. Theory, Culture & Society 32 (2): 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas. 2006. Absent environments: Theorising environmental law and the city. London: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
  51. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas. 2013. Critical autopoiesis and the materiality of law. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law: 13.Google Scholar
  52. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas, and Tom E. Webb. 2015. Vulnerable bodies, vulnerable systems. International Journal of Law in Context 11 (4): 444–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pribáñ, Jiri. 2001. Legitimation between the noise of politics and the order of law. In Law’s new boundaries: The consequences of legal autopoiesis, ed. J. Pribáñ, and D. Nelken. Aldershot: Dartmouth Ashgate.Google Scholar
  54. Rieu-Clarke, Alistair. 2015. Transboundary hydropower projects seen through the lens of three international legal regimes—foreign investment, environmental protection and human rights. International Journal of Water Governance 3 (1): 27–48.Google Scholar
  55. Ruo, Liao. 2011. Lessons from the Irrawaddy. China dialogue. https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4574-Lessons-from-the-Irrawaddy. Accessed 16 October 2016.
  56. Sadoff, Claudia, and David Grey. 2002. Beyond the river: The benefit of cooperation on international rivers. Water Policy 4: 389–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scheumann, Waltina. 2008. How global norms for large dams reach decision-makers. In Water politics and development cooperation: Local power plays and global governance, ed. Waltina Scheumann, Susanne Neubert, and Martin Kipping, 55–80. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sivapalan, Murugesu, and Günter Blöschl. 2015. Time scale interactions and the coevolution of humans and water. Water Resources Research 51 (9): 6988–7022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sneddon, Chris, and Coleen Fox. 2006. Rethinking transboundary waters: A critical hydropolitics of the Mekong basin. Political Geography 25 (2): 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Swart, R.J., P. Raskin, and J. Robinson. 2004. The problem of the future: Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change 14 (2): 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Teubner, Gunther. 2009. Self-subversive justice: Contingency or transcendence formula of law? The Modern Law Review 72 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Teubner, Gunther. 2011. And god laughed: Indeterminacy, self-reference and paradox in law. German Law Journal 12 (1): 376–406.Google Scholar
  63. UN-Water. 2008. Transboundary waters: Sharing benefits, sharing responsibilities. UN-Water Thematic Paper.Google Scholar
  64. Valentinov, Vladislav. 2014. The complexity-sustainability trade-off in Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 31 (1): 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson, Jessica. 2002. The sponsorship scam. In Battling big business: Countering greenwash front groups and other forms of corporate bullying, ed. Lorenzo R. Scupoli, 44–52. Monroe: Common Courage Press.Google Scholar
  66. World Wildlife Fund. 2004. Rivers at risk: Dams and the future of freshwater ecosystems. WWF Dams Initiative.Google Scholar
  67. Zeitoun, Mark, Marisa Goulden, and David Tickner. 2013. Current and future challenges facing transboundary river basin management. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4 (5): 331–349.Google Scholar
  68. Ziegert, Klaus A. 2013. Review: Observing law through systems theory by Richard Nobles and David Schiff. Journal of Law and Society 40 (2): 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zumbansen, Peer. 2001. Die vergangene zukunft des völkerrechts. Kritische Justiz 34 (1): 46–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.China International Water Law Research GroupSchool of Law, Xiamen UniversityXiamenChina

Personalised recommendations