Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Desecuritisation of water and the technocratic turn in peacebuilding

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article addresses the research gap of water desecuritisation and advances an interdisciplinary approach within the issue area of peacebuilding. It draws upon three strands of research: security, peacebuilding and transboundary water management. The article examines three core questions: (1) how is desecuritisation conceptualised and understood in theory as well as within the context of water development; (2) in what ways are water conflict addressed within the liberal peacebuilding paradigm; and (3) what are the roles and implications of technocracy in resolving conflict and building peace? The article conducts a conceptual scoping, which critically probes what desecuritisation and peacebuilding do politically in the water sector. It draws empirical illustrations from the Israeli–Palestinian water conflict where water is securitised while major peacebuilding efforts have been made to desecuritise the conflict. It concludes that technical blueprints may run the risk of depoliticising conflict dynamics, which contradicts the normative assumption about desecuritisation as a return to normal politics. Moreover, the technocratic turn in peacebuilding practices have empowered certain actors, who act as the “new” peacemakers while others are marginalised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In that way, it is similar to the negative definition of peace, which primarily focuses on the absence of violence, whereas positive peace is forward looking and strives towards goals, such as distributional justice, emancipation, social equality.

  2. The Jordan River is no longer available as a water resource to the Palestinians (Schlütter 2005, p. 625).

  3. The Palestinian territories receive the highest sustained rate in the world of per capita disbursements to an aid recipient (Brynen 2008:234).

  4. This has also triggered a fierce competitive market for funding schemes among peace NGOs.

  5. The framework of the Middle East Peace Process was structured along two tracks of bilateral and multilateral negotiations.

Abbreviations

CSO:

Civil society organisation

DOP:

Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements

FOEME:

Friends of the Earth Middle East

GDP:

Gross domestic product

MEPP:

Middle East Peace Process

NGO:

Non-governmental organisation

PA:

Palestinian Authority

PLO:

Palestine Liberation Organisation

PWA:

Palestinian Water Authority

References

  • Abitol, E. (2009). Developing water and marginalising Israel/Palestinian peace: A critical examination of the red sea-dead sea canal feasibility study process. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 5(1), 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aggestam, K., & Strömbom, L. (2013). Disempowerment and marginalisation of peace NGOs. Exposing peace gaps in Israel and Palestine. Journal of Peacebuilding, 1(1), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aggestam, K., & Sundell, A. (2014). Situating water in peacebuilding. Water International, 39(1), 10–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aggestam, K., & Sundell, A. (2015). Depoliticising water conflict. The quest for functional peacebuilding in the Red Sea-Dead-Sea-Water-Conveyance project. Hydrological Sciences Journal. doi:10.1080/02626667.2014.999778.

  • Alam, U. Z. (2002). Questioning the water wars rationale: A case study of the Indus Waters Treaty. The Geographical Journal, 168(4), 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alatout, S. (2006). Towards a bio-territorial conception of power: Territory, population, and environmental narratives in Palestine and Israel. Political Geography, 25, 601–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amery, H. A. (2002). Water wars in the Middle East: A looming threat. The Geographical Journal, 168(4), 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aradau, C. (2004). Security and the democratic scene: Desecuritization and emancipation. Journal of International Relations and Development, 7(4), 388–413.

  • Barnes, J., & Alatout, S. (2012). Water worlds. Introduction to the special issue of Social Studies of Science, 42(4), 483–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. (2012). International paternalism and humanitarian governance. Global Constitutionalism, 1(3), 485–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borthwick, B. (2010). Water in Israeli–Jordanian relations: from conflict to the danger of ecological disaster. Israel Affairs, 9(3), 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutros-Ghali, B. (1995). An agenda for peace. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D., & Trottier, J. (2014). De-nationalization and de-securitization of transboundary water resources: The Israeli–Palestinian case. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(2), 211–223.

  • Brown, O., & Crawford, A. (2009). Rising temperatures, Rising tensions. Climate change and the risk of violent conflict in the Middle East. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). Winnipeg: IISD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, C., & McDonald, M. (2011). The future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security. European Journal of International Relations, 19(2), 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brynen, R. (2008). Palestine: Building states to build peace. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2003). Regions and power. The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S., Chandler, D., & Sabaratnam, M. (Eds.). (2011). The liberal peace? The problems and practices of peacebuilding. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chellaney, B. (2013). Water, peace, and war. Confronting the global water crisis. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses (1997). Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 May 1997. Entered into force on 17 Aug 2014. Retrieved from: Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 May 1997. Entered into force on 17 Aug 2014. http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_3_1997.pdf

  • Cook, C., & Bakker, K. (2011). Water security: Debating an emerging paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coskun, B. (2008). Analysing desecuritisations: Prospects and problems for Israeli–Palestinian reconciliation. Global Change, Peace & Security, 20(3), 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coskun, B. (2009). Cooperation over water resources as a tool for desecurisation: The Israeli–Palestinian environmental NGOs as desecuritising actor. European Journal of Economics and Political Studies, 2, 97–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Declaration of Principles on Self-Government Arrangements, 13 September 1993. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Peace/Guide/Pages/Declaration%20of%20Principles.aspx

  • de Stefano, L., Edwards, P., de Silvia, L., & Wolf, A. T. (2010). Tracking cooperation and conflict in international basins: Historic and recent trends. Water Policy, 12, 871–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinar, S. (2002). Water, security, conflict and cooperation. SAIS Review, 22(2), 229–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolaytar, M., & Gray, T. S. (2000). Water politics in the Middle East—A context for conflict or co-operation?. London: MacMillan Press ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffield, M. (2001). Global governance and the new wars. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feitelson, E., Abdelrahman, T., & Rosenthal, G. (2012). Climate change and security in the Israeli–Palestinian context. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhendler, I. (2015). The securitization of water discourse: theoretical foundations and research gaps. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. Special issue: The securitization of water discourse. doi:10.1007/s10784-015-9277-6.

  • Fischhendler, I., Dinar, S., & Katz, D. (2011). The politics of unilateral environmentalism: Cooperation and conflict over water management along the Israeli–Palestinian border. Global Environmental Politics, 11(1), 36–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, R. (2007). Towards a consequentalist evaluation of security: Bringing together the Copenhagen and the Welsh Schools of security studies. Review of International Studies, 33, 327–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frölich, C. (2012). Security and discourse: the Israeli-Palestinian water conflict. Conflict, Security & Development, 12(2), 123–148.

  • Goetschel, L., & Hagmann, T. (2009). Civilian Peacebuilding: Peace by bureaucratic means? Conflict, Security, Development, 9(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, E. (2008). Beyond the Nation State. Functionalism and International Organization: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsinki Rules. (1966). The Helsinki rules on the uses of the waters of international rivers. Adopted by the International Law Association at the fifty-second conference, held at Helsinki in August 1966. http://webworld.unesco.org/water/wwap/pccp/cd/pdf/educational_tools/course_modules/reference_documents/internationalregionconventions/helsinkirules.pdf

  • Homer-Dixon, T. (1999). Environment, scarcity and violence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, M. (2012). New and old wars. London: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D. (2011). Hydro-political hyperbole: Examining incentives for overemphasizing the risks of water wars. Global Environmental Politics, 11(1), 12–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., & Fishhendler, I. (2011). Spatial and temporal dynamics of linkage strategies in Arab–Israeli water negotiations. Political Geography, 30, 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kliot, N. (1994). Water resources and conflict in the Middle East. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, A. (2008). Regional water cooperation and peacebuilding in the Middle East. Adelphi research: Initiative for Peacebuilding.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, M. R. (1995). Water and power: the politics of a scarce resource in the Jordan River basin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2012). Routine peace: Technocracy and Peacebuilding. Cooperation and Conflict, 47(3), 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, M. (2011). Deliberation and resecuritization: Australia, asylum-seekers and the normative limits of the Copenhagen School. Australian Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollinga, P. P. (2008). Water policy—water politics. Social engineering and strategic action in water sector reform. In W. Sheumann, et al. (Eds.), Water politics and development cooperation. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics. London and New York, Verso: Thinking the World Politically.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, E., Paris, R., & Richmond, O. (Eds.). (2009). New perspectives on liberal peacebuilding. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peres, S. (1993). The new middle east. Element: Longmead.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter, J. (1996). Pathways to peace? The multilateral Arab-Israel peace talks. London: Royal Institute of International affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, P. (2012). Is securitization a ‘negative’ concept? Revisiting the normative debate over normal versus extraordinary politics. Security Dialogue, 43, 249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheumann, W., & Schiffler, M. (Eds.). (1998). Water in the Middle East: Potential for Conflicts and Prospects for Cooperation. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlütter, B. (2005). Water rights in the West Bank and in Gaza. Leiden Journal of International Law, 18, 621–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selby, J. (2003). Water, power and politics in the Middle East. The other Palestinian-Israeli conflict. London: I.B. Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soffer, A. (1999). Rivers of fire—The conflict over water in the Middle East. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stetter, S., Herschinger, E., Teichler, T., & Albert, M. (2011). Conflicts about water: Securitizations in a global context. Cooperation and Conflict, 46(4), 441–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Politics of Securitization. (2011). Special issue on Security Dialogue, 42 (4–5).

  • Trottier, J. (1999). Hydropolitics in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Jerusalem: PASSIA—Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trottier, J. (2003). Water wars: The rise of a hegemonic concept. In W. Security (Ed.), and. Peace: A synthesis of studies prepared under the PCCP-Water for Peace Process. UNESCO-Green Cross International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trottier, J. (2006) Donors, modellers and development brokers: The pork Barrel of Water Management Research. Reconstruction: Studies in contemporary culture, 6.3. ISSN (electronic) 1547–4348. http://reconstruction.eserver.org/063/trottier.shtml - See more at: http://eprint.ncl.ac.uk/pub_details2.aspx?pub_id=11976#sthash.kLrVWAvg.dpuf.

  • Trottier, J. (2007). A wall, water and power: The Israeli ‘separation fence. Review of International Studies, 33, 105–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trottier, J., & Brooks, D. (2013). Academic Tribes and Transboundary Water Management. Science & Diplomacy. http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2013/academic-tribes-and-transboundary-water-management.

  • Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security (pp. 46–86). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waever, O. (2011). Politics, security, theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J., & Wegerich, K. (2010). Is water politics? Towards international water relations. In K. Wegerich & J. Warner (Eds.), The politics of water. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinthal, E., & Marei, A. (2002). One resource two visions. Water International, 27(4), 460–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, A. T., Yoffe, S., & Giordano, M. (2003). International waters: Identifying basins at risk. Water Policy, 5(1), 29–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeitoun, M. (2011). The global web of national security. Global Policy, 2(3), 286–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitoun, M., Eid-Sabbagh, K., Talhami, M., & Dajani, M. (2013). Hydro-hegemony in the upper Jordan waterscap: Control and the use of the flows. Water Alternatives, 6(1), 86–106.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the two anonymous referees for constructive and helpful comments. Financial support for this research was provided by the Middle East in the Contemporary World (MECW) programme of the Centre for Middle East Studies at Lund University and the Swedish Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Lund University, Box 52, 221 00, Lund, Sweden

    Karin Aggestam

Authors
  1. Karin Aggestam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin Aggestam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aggestam, K. Desecuritisation of water and the technocratic turn in peacebuilding. Int Environ Agreements 15, 327–340 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9281-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9281-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation