Legal Plurality in Mekong Hydropower: Its Emergence and Policy Implications

Chapter
Part of the Springer Water book series (SPWA)

Abstract

The changing role of the state and the increased participation of non-state actors has blurred the meaning of international affairs and highlighted overlapping power structures at international, national, and local levels. This paper illustrates how these power structures shape the hydropower decision making landscape in one of the world’s most dynamic transboundary basins, the Mekong. Using the Lao PDR as a case study, we highlight how international donors’ influence in the overall shaping of national policy and legal frameworks, the state’s positioning of hydropower development as the main source of revenue, and the emerging importance of private sector actors manifested in overlapping rules and legal plurality in hydropower decision making. While legal plurality reflects the inherently contested terrain of hydropower, it also highlights the importance of power geometries and the scale dynamics in hydropower governance. The growing role of non-state actors may be interpreted as a reduction in state decision making power, but it may also be seen as a means for the state to take advantage of competing interests, in this case receiving both donor funding and private capital. If international donors expect national government agencies to promote meaningful application of internationally defined socio-environmental safeguards, they need to create space for critical discussion and move beyond the current standardized approach in promoting sustainable hydropower development.

Keywords

Scale dynamics Hydropower development State laws Natural resource management Mekong 

References

  1. Asian Development Bank (2009) Building a sustainable energy future. The Greater Mekong SubregionGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnew J (2005) Sovereignty regimes: territoriality and state authority in contemporary world politics. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 95(2):437–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahdieh RB (2004) Between dialogue and decree: international review of national courts. N.Y. Univ Law Rev 79(6):2029–2163Google Scholar
  4. Aligica PD (2006) Institutional and stakeholder mapping: frameworks for policy analysis and institutional change. Public Organ Rev 6:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo J (1997) Mapping reality: an evolutionary realist methodology for the natural and social science. SUNY Series in the Philosophy of the Social Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakker K (2010) Neoliberalizing nature? Market environmentalism in water supply in England and Wales. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 95(3):542–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berman PS (2009) The new legal pluralism. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 5:225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burawoy M (1991) The extended case method. In: Buroway M (ed) Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis, pp 271–287. University of California Pres, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke-White WW (2004) International legal pluralism. Michigan J Int Law 25(4):963–979Google Scholar
  10. Carruthers B, Halliday T (2006) Negotiating globalization: globalization and the construction of Insolvency regimes in East Asia. Law Soc Inquiry 31:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox K (1997) Spaces of globalization: reasserting the power of the local. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Escobar A (2001) Culture sits in places: reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Polit Geogr 20:139–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feitelson E, Fischhendler I (2009) Spaces of water governance: the case of Israel and its neighbors. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 99(4):728–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Furlong K (2006) Hidden theories, troubled waters: international relations, the territorial trap and the Southern African Development Community’s transboundary waters. Polit Geogr 25(4):438–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffiths J (1986) What is legal pluralism? J Legal Pluralism 24:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey D (1989) The condition of postmodernity. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Jessop B (2004) Hollowing out the ‘nation state’ and multilevel governance. In: Kennet P (ed) A handbook of comparative social policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 11–25Google Scholar
  18. Mekong River Commission (2009) Hydropower sector review for the joint basin planning process. Basin Development Plan Program phase II. VientianeGoogle Scholar
  19. Middleton C, Garcia J, Foran T (2009) Old and new hydropower players in the Mekong region: agendas and strategies. In: Molle F, Foran T, Kakonen M (eds) Constested waterscapes in the Mekong region: hydropower, livelihoods and governance. Earthscan, London, pp 23–54Google Scholar
  20. Migdal J (1988) Strong societies and weak states: state-society relations and state capabilities in the third world. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  21. Migdal J (2001) State in society: studying how states and societies transform and constitute one another. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore S (1978) Law and social change: the semi-autonomous social field as an appropriate subject of study. In: Moore S (ed) Law as a process: an anthropological approach. Routledge, London, pp 54–81Google Scholar
  23. Norman ES, Bakker K (2009) Transgressing scales: water governance across the Canada-US borderland. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 99(1):99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Randeria S (2007) The state of globalization: legal plurality, overlapping sovereignties and ambiguous alliances between civil society and the cunning state in India. Theory Cult Soc 24(1):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Resnik J (2008) Foreign as domestic affairs: rethinking horizontal federalism and foreign affairs preemption in light of translocal internationalism. Emory Law J 57(1):31–92Google Scholar
  26. Robertson R (1995) Glocalization: time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In: Featherstone M, Lash SM, Robertson R (eds) Global modernities: theory, culture, society. Sage Publications, London and New Delhi, pp 25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Santos BD (2006) The heterogeneous state and legal pluralism in Mozambique. Law Soc Rev 40(1):39–76Google Scholar
  28. Santos BS (2002) The heterogeneous state and legal pluralism in Mozambique. Law Soc Rev 40(1):39–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Santos BS, Rodriguez-Garavito CA (2005) Law and globalization from below: towards a cosmopolitan legality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schulte-Nordholt H (2003) Renegotiating boundaries: access, agency and identity in post-Suharto Indonesia. Bijdragen tot de Taal Land en Volkenkunde 159(4):550–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scott J (1987) Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press, USGoogle Scholar
  32. Singer PW (2003) Corporate warriors: the rise of the privatized military industry. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  33. Sneddon C (2003) Reconfiguring scale and power: the Khong-Chi-Mun project in northeast Thailand. Environ Plann 35:2229–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spiertz J, Wiber MG (1996) The role of law in natural resource management. VUGA, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  35. Spiertz J (2000) Water rights and legal pluralism: some basics of a legal anthropological approach. In: Bruns B, Meinzen-Dick R (eds) Negotiating water rights. Intermediate Technology Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Swyngedouw E (1997) Neither global nor local: “Glocalization” and the politics of scale. In: Cox K (ed) Spaces of globalization: reasserting the power of the local. Guilford, New York, pp 137–166Google Scholar
  37. Vientiane Times (2013) Ministry of Planning and Investment records investment value in excess of US$ 3.04 billion. 13 October 2013Google Scholar
  38. von Benda-Beckmann K (1981) Forum shopping and shopping forums: dispute processing in a Minangkabau village in West Sumatra. J Legal Pluralism 19:117–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. von Benda-Beckmann F, von Benda-Beckmann K, Spiertz J (1996) Water rights and water policy. In: Spiertz J, Wiber MG (eds) The role of law in natural resource management. VUGA, The Hague, pp 77–99Google Scholar
  40. Yin RK (1994) Case study research: designs and methods. Applied social research methods series no. 5. Thousand Oaks and Sage Publications, London and New DelhiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Water Management Institute, Southeast Asia Regional OfficeVientianeLao PDR
  2. 2.Edmund a. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations