Third Party Intervention in Conflict Resolution: Dispute Between Bangladesh and India over Control of the Ganges River
To demonstrate the strategic influence a third party can have on negotiations, a formal approach to resolving a complex conflict is applied to an important international water resources controversy. Specifically, third party intervention is employed within the framework of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) to systematically investigate the ongoing dispute between Bangladesh and India over the regulation of the Ganges River by India at the Farakka Barrage located just upstream on the Ganges River in India before it flows into Bangladesh. A general system of systems engineering approach to Third Party Intervention within the GMCR structure is designed to reflect a range of ways in which it can be implemented in practice. Having an insightful and powerful tool like Third Party GMCR permits one to ascertain how a Third Party can guide a serious conflict to a more reasonable resolution which may be mutually beneficial to all concerned parties.
KeywordsGanges river Farakka barrage Graph model for conflict resolution International dispute Third party intervention Upstream-downstream conflicts
The authors would like to thank Mr. Conrad W. Hipel for his professional editing of this chapter.
- Bercovitch, J., & Jackson, R. D. W. (2009). Conflict resolution in the twenty-first century: Principles, methods and approaches. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Fang, L., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (1993). Interactive decision making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Fraser, N. M., & Hipel, K. W. (1984). Conflict analysis: Models and resolutions. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Greig, J. M., & Diehl, P. F. (2012). International mediation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Hagihara, Y., & Sakamoto, M. (2004). Conflict management on utilization of the Ganges water resources between Bangladesh and India. Annals of the Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, 47(B), 13.Google Scholar
- Hipel, K. W. (Ed.). (2009a). Conflict resolution (Vol. 1). Oxford: Eolss Publishers.Google Scholar
- Hipel, K. W. (Ed.). (2009b). Conflict resolution (Vol. 2). Oxford: Eolss Publishers.Google Scholar
- Hipel, K. W., Fang, L., & Kilgour, D. M. (1993). Game theoretic models in engineering decision making. Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Infrastructure Planning and Management, 470(IV-20), 1–16.Google Scholar
- Hipel, K. W., Obeidi, A., Fang, L., & Kilgour, D. M. (2008b). Adaptive systems thinking in integrated water resources management with insights into conflicts over water exports. INFOR, 46(1), 51–69.Google Scholar
- Hipel, K. W., Obeidi, A., Fang, L., & Kilgour, D. M. (2009). Sustainable environmental management from a system of systems perspective. In M. Jamshidi(ed) (Ed.), System of systems engineering: Innovations for the 21st century (pp. 443–481). New York: Wiley. Chapter 18.Google Scholar
- Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Fang, L. (2011b). The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. In J. J. Cochran, L. A. Cox, P. Keskinocak, J. P. Kharoufeh, & J. C. Smith (Eds.), Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science (pp. 2099–2111). New York: Wiley. Vol. 3 of 8.Google Scholar
- Howard, N. (1971). Paradoxes of rationality: Theory of metagames and political behaviour. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2014). World economic outlook data base. Washington, DC: IMF.Google Scholar
- Kilgour, D. M., & Eden, C. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Kinsara, R. A., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2015a). Inverse approach to the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 45(5), 734–742. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2014.2376473.
- Kinsara, R. A., Petersons, O., Hipel, K. W, & Kilgour, D. M. (2015b). Advanced decision support system for the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Journal of Decision Systems, special issue on Integrated Decision Support Systems, 24(2), 117–145. doi: 10.1080/12460125.2015.1046682.
- Kondo, N. (ed) (1997). Gendai minami ajia no kokusai kankei (The present international relations in South Asia), Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization, Mihamaku, Chiba, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
- Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-player games. Proceedings: National Academy of Sciences, 36, 48–49.Google Scholar
- Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., & Metcalfe, D. (2002). Negotiation analysis: The science and art of collaborative decision making. Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Sage, A. P. (1991). Decision support systems engineering. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Sakamoto, M., Hagihara, Y., & Hipel, K. W. (2004). A study on the roles of a third party in the Ganges River water conflict between Bangladesh and India (in Japanese). In Proceedings of the environment research conference, sponsored by the committee on environmental systems of the Japan society of civil engineering, held in Tokyo, 3–4 Nov 2004, Vol. 32, pp. 29–36.Google Scholar
- Sakamoto, M., Hagihara, Y., & Hipel, K. W. (2005). Coordination process by a third party in the conflict between Bangladesh and India over regulation of the Ganges River. In Proceedings of the 2005 I.E. international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, held in the Hilton Waikoloa Village, The Big Island of Hawaii, 9–12 Oct 2005, pp. 1119–1125.Google Scholar
- von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of games and economic behaviour (3rd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar