World Focus
Water Disputes and Peaceful Settlement in the World
I. Introduction:The availability of water has got vital place in the policies of the governments. How to use or share the water of International River is the major question. Countries and non-state actors try to find solution by international law. United Nations and World Bank attempted for peaceful settlement of water disputes. The riparian states attempt to solve their water disputes through the agreements. Major water disputes and efforts for peaceful settlement are discussed in this paper.
We are worried about potable Water. Water scarcity increases water insecurity. Life would be impossible without it. Human can live more than a month without food, but only a week without water. Experts have discussed bringing icebergs from the seas of Antarctica to water-starved region. Proposals have been made to ship water not only in tankers, but also in 660-meter-long "Medusa Bags" from Turkey to countries in the Middle East. Ismail Serageldin, Vice-President of the World Bank, stated in 1995 that, "If the wars of the twentieth century were fought over oil, the wars of this century will be fought over water." UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has warned that "Fierce competition for fresh water may well become a source of conflict and wars in the future.
Water plays an important role in socio-cultural and religious activities around the world. Ninety seven percent of all the water on the earth is salt water- unsuitable for drinking or growing crops. The remaining 3 percent of water is inaccessible which is locked away in the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland and in deep aquifers. Only 0.3 percent of the total fresh water is useable for human and animal populations of the world. The world's 38 poorest countries are located near areas that lack sufficient water supplies. Even those countries that possess sufficient supplies suffer regional or zonal shortages. 'A World Bank Policy Paper'(1992) on 'Water Resource Management' observed that "water is an increasingly scarce resource requiring careful economic and environmental management... As the demand for water for human and industrial use has escalated, so has the competition for water used for irrigated agriculture." In United States of America 36 states face a water shortage. Water scarcity is a problem in Northern India, Northeastern China and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley in California.
Global climatic change will affect water availability. The clearest threat posed by climatic change is the increase in both evaporative losses and water demands caused by higher average temperatures. Even without changes in precipitation, water availability can decrease by 10 percent or more simply owing to average temperature increases of 2 to 3°C.
In a report on the implementation of Agenda 21's recommendations on fresh water, the UN Secretary General observed that: "By the year 2025 a full 35 per cent of the world population will be living under conditions of water scarcity or stress, compared with about 6 per cent in 1990." The term "water scarcity" is defined as "a per capita availability of fresh water resources of 1,000 cubic meters or less," and "water stress" as "a per capita availability of between 1,000 and 17,00 cubic meters." Falkenmark and Widstrand suggested ranking of water shortage measure in m3 per capita per year: a) less than 1000 is a water-scarce country, b) 1000-1700 is a water-stressed country, c) 1701-3000 is a water-insufficient country, d) 3001-10000 is a water-sufficient country, and e) more than 10000 is a water-abundant country.
According to UN statistics, worldwide demand for fresh water grew from 579 cubic km per year in 1900 to 4,130 cubic km in 1990. Americans consume over 70 times as much water annually as Ghanaians. By 1990, water availability per capita in 18 countries had fallen below 1,000 cubic meters per year. Because of population growth, by the year 2025, over 30 countries will be unable to provide 1,000 cubic meters per person per year. In 1990 there were twelve countries in which water availability was less than 500 cubic meters per person per year; this number is projected to increase to nineteen by 2025. The threat to freshwater resources posed by climate change was recognized in Agenda 21, the action plan adopted at the Earth Summit in 1992.
Dinar, A. et. al. explained three factors that affect the ability of a country to cope with water scarcity. First, water quality is an important dimension of water scarcity. The available water in a country that is polluted is consequently no longer part of the usable quantity. Second, the standard of living in a country is a major factor affecting the way humans will consider water scarcity. Higher living standards are usually associated with elevated levels of water consumption (e.g., washing machines, swimming pools). The technological level of a country may allow its citizens to live quite well on relatively small amounts of water (e.g., recycling, seawater desalinization). At the country level, governments attempt for inter-basin water transfers (e.g., China, California, Israel) to ease local water scarcity situations.
II. International River:Since 1950 the continents of South America, Africa and Asia expressed their concern about common river basins, and south Asia particularly produced significant types of international river agencies. Since the Second World War, the total number of the world's independent nations has doubled. Especially in the developing continents, formerly internal rivers have now become international bodies of water.
An international river is one that flows along the borders or through the territories of two or more states, or whose drainage basin is situated on the borders of or within two or more nations. The Helsinki Rules defines 'international drainage basin' and 'basin state' in its articles. Article II: "An 'international drainage basin' is a geographical area extending over two or more States determined by the watershed limits of the system of waters, including surface and underground waters, flowing into a common terminus." The 1997 Watercourse Convention defined some terms in Article 2, as: 1) "Watercourse" means a system of surface waters and groundwaters constituting by virtue of their physical relationship a unitary whole and normally flowing into a common terminus; 2) "International watercourse" means a watercourse, parts of which are situated in different States."
In the 20th century, the number of nation-states increased due to the end of colonial power in the continents of Africa and Asia. Because of the disintegration process the number of states is increased. Naturally, the number of international rivers increased. A river which was within a country it crossed boundary. According to the United Nations committee for international natural resources and rivers, there are about 214 international rivers in the world, including about 110 rivers whose drainage basins are very large. There are 69 international rivers in the Americas, 48 in Europe, 57 in Africa, and 40 in Asia.
According to McCaffrey, "the term "watercourse" means not only the main surface water channel and the water contained therein, but also the other components of a watercourse system, in particular, tributaries and groundwater." The concept of a "watercourse system" is conveyed by the expressions "catchment," "watershed" and "drainage basin" provided that these terms are understood to encompass subsurface as well as surface water. It is considered that because of the river's physical (geographical) unity a river basin should be developed as a single, indivisible whole, irrespective of political division. It can be considered a common property resource. Its exploitation by one beneficiary may diminish the benefits enjoyed by all others. By the economic perspective the basin should be treated as a unit.
Water disputes increased because of the growing non-navigational uses of water of international rivers. According to McCaffrey, "the increasing importance of non-navigational uses relative to navigation, and the resulting trend in state practice, leaves little doubt that navigation no longer enjoys its former preferred status." India's National Water Policy-2002 gave last preference to the navigation uses in water allocation priorities.
III. Water Dispute:A question is asked that, who can control water flow. Powerful countries try to control the water flow of the international rivers. Mark Reiner rightly said, "Water flows towards power and money," J. A. Allan (in his book The Middle East Water Questions: Hydro politics and the Global Economy, 2001), illustrates the factors which are important in controlling water flows of three river basins in the Middle East. He focused on state's water sufficiency, economic capacity, hegemonic power and its position in international politics. Egypt, Israel and Turkey are dominant they can control water flow of the international river in the particular basin.
According to scholars, conflicts over freshwater sources will soon replace oil as the major cause of inter-national wars (Falkenmark, 1986; Gleick, 1993; Lonergan, 1997; Klare, 2001). Some scholars disagree with such predictions (Wolf, 1998; Swain, 2001; Alam, 2002; Waterbury, 2002). Some argue that unregulated or unilateral use does lit-tle to stem problems of pollution and water scarcity and may increase prospects for lower-level armed conflict (Furlong, Gleditsch & Hegre, 2006; Gleditsch et all, 2006; Hensel, Mitchell & Sowers, 2006; Toset, Gleditsch & Hegre, 2000).
Zeitoun says that the absence of war does not mean the absence of conflict. And that the effects of conflict are no less consequential than the effects of war. He argues that there is evidence to support the view that control over the sources of the Jordan River had some influence in the 1967 war between Israel and Syria, Egypt and Jordan. There is certainly reason to concern over Egyptian threats over the Nile or the effects of Turkey's damming of the Tigris and Euphrates. In the sense that a water war is one fought for control of water, none of these cases prove to be genuine. In his study, Aarnon Wolf has found no example of water as a casus belli. Even for those states still formally at war with each other, as Israel and Lebanon, there is not likely to be a 'water war' in future. Water may rarely be the sole motive for war it is often a victim and target of it. Water resources and water infrastructure are closely associated with all types of military conflict. Zeitoun states that power asymmetry is the reason for the absence of water wars. When the imbalance of power is severe, military conflict may be pre-empted according to the rules of real politic: the opportunity costs of an attack are too high. Weaker states 'know their place' in their neighbourhood.
Gleick, in his article, attempted to link between water and conflict. Scarce water becomes a matter of national security. Nations competition for scarce water leads towards disputes over shared fresh water resources. Not all water resources disputes will lead to violent conflict; indeed most lead to negotiations, discussions, and non-violent resolutions. In the Middle East and southern and central Asia, water is becoming an issue of "high politics," and the probability of water-related violence is increasing.
Lowi argues that in the both the Jordan and Indus basins, the nature and scope of the larger political conflict were the proximate reason for the failure to reach cooperative solution. Lowi argues the riparian dispute in a protracted conflict setting is not simply about water; it takes on many of the attributes of the inter-state conflict. The parties involved view the riparian dispute and the political conflict as one and the same. The former is perceived as a manifestation, or microcosm of the later. Both conflicts trigger a similar discourse; both arose a similar attitude toward the adversary. Lowi states that states which are antagonists in the "high politics" of war and diplomacy tend not to agree willingly to extensive collaboration in the sphere of "low politics," centered around economic and welfare issues.
Gleick highlighted some characteristics that make water likely to be sources of strategic rivalry are:
1) the degree of scarcity,
2) the extent to which the water supply is shared by more than one region or state,
3) the relative power of the basin states, and
4) the ease of access to alternative fresh water sources. He, in this concern, gives the example of Middle East.
In this century, hydroelectric dams were bombed during World War II, and the centralized dams on the Yalu River serving North Korea and China were attacked during the Korean War. Similarly, Iran claimed to have blacked out large portions of Iraq in July 1981 by bombing a hydroelectric station in Kurdistan. Irrigation water-supply systems in North Vietnam were bombed by the United States in the late 1960s. When Syria tried to stop Israel in the 1950s from building its National Water Carrier, an aqueduct to provide water to southern Israel, fighting broke out across the demilitarized zone, and when Syria tried to divert the headwaters of the Jordan in the mid-1960s, Israel used force, including air strikes against the diversion facilities to prevent their construction and operation. These military actions contributed to the tensions that led to the 1967 War. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, most of Kuwait's extensive desalination capacity was destroyed by the retreating Iraqis, and Baghdad's modern water supply and sanitation system, which had intentionally been destroyed during the war.
In early 1993, it was reported that Saddam Hussein was poisoning and draining the water supplies of southern Shiite Muslims in his efforts to quell the opposition to his government. In 1993, the Peruca dam, the second largest dam in the former Yugoslavia, was intentionally destroyed in the civil war. In 1986, when North Korea announced plans to build the Kumgansan hydroelectric dam on a tributary of the Han River upstream of South Korea's capital, Seoul. This raised fears in South Korea that the dam could be used as a tool to disrupt its water supply, or as a military weapon to flood Seoul. South Korea built a series of levees and check dams above Seoul to try to mitigate possible impacts.
Both Syria and Iraq depend heavily on the Euphrates River. In 1974, Iraq threatened to bomb the al-Thawra dam in Syria; it massed troops along the border, alleging that the flow of water to Iraq had been reduced by the dam. In 1990, in Grand Anatolia Project, Turkey built the Ataturk Dam. It interrupted the flow of the Euphrates for a month to partly fill the reservoir. Syria and Iraq both protested that Turkey now had a water weapon that could be used against them. Indeed, in mid-1990, Turkish President Turgut Ozal threatened to restrict water flow to Syria to force it to withdraw support for Kurdish rebels operating in southern Turkey. In Persian Gulf conflict, the discussions were about using Turkish dams on the Euphrates River to deprive Iraq of a significant fraction of its fresh water supply. But, no such action was ever taken; the threat of the "water weapon" was again made clear.
The regional resource disputes within what was the Soviet Union must now be considered international due to the changing political status of the former republics. The destruction of the Aral Sea from overuse of the Amu Dar'ya and Syr Dar'ya rivers was once internal Soviet matter, now the problem affects five independent nations. Egypt's Aswan High Dam led to flooding and dislocation of populations in the Sudan. The Farakka Barrage on the Ganges in India affected water conditions and availability in Bangladesh. In 1992, a serious political dispute arose between Hungary and Czechoslovakia over the construction and operation of the Gabcikovo/ Nagymaros project on the Danube River.
Between 1900 – 2009, seventeen water disputes with military force used occurred including the Sino-Soviet dispute in 1960 killing 3000 Soviet and Chinese troops and in Mauritania and Senegal in 1989 killing 400 people. In 2010 China tried to block an Asian Development Bank loan to India's projected dam in Arunachal Pradesh. Since then both countries have increased their military presence in the region. According to Soffer, sometimes riparian states are enemies for reasons unconnected with water, and hostile relations prevent them from cooperating in any arena, especially water.
With new technology countries are exploiting water resources. There is domestic and industrial use of water. It is required for irrigation and power generation. The population of the world is growing and water is becoming scarce. Where the standard of living is increased, there water demand is also increased. The states are attempting to satisfy the need of water. All this leads towards water dispute.
IV. Peaceful Settlement:The Institute of International Law's the 1961 Salzburg Resolution on the Use of International Non-Maritime Waters, the International Law Association's thel966 Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers, the Southern Africa Development Community's the 1995 Protocol on Shared Watercourses, and UN's the 1997 Watercourses Convention tried to frame international laws on the Uses of Waters of International Rivers.
On May 21, 1997, the General Assembly of the United Nations, in the 51s' session, adopted the "Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses." This Convention entered into force on August 17, 2014. It is known as 'the 1997 Watercourses Convention. This Convention is divided into 7 parts and 37 articles.
Article 5 provides equitable and reasonable utilization and participation: 1) Watercourse States shall in their respective territories utilize an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. 2) "Watercourse States shall participate in the use, development and protection of an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. Such participation includes both the right to utilize the watercourse and the duty to cooperate in the protection and development thereof, as provided in the present Convention.
Article 6 states the factors relevant to equitable and reasonable utilization:
a) Geographic, hydrographic, hydrological, climatic, ecological and other factors of a natural character;
b) The social and economic needs of the watercourse States concerned;
c) The population dependent on the watercourse in each watercourse State;
d) The effects of the use or uses of the watercourses in one watercourse State on other watercourse States;
e) Existing and potential uses of the watercourse;
f) Conservation, protection, development and economy of use of the water resources of the watercourse and the costs of measures taken to that effect;
g) The availability of alternatives, of comparable value, to a particular planned or existing use.
The weight to be given to each factor is to be determined by its importance in comparison with that of other relevant factors. In determining what is a reasonable and equitable use, all relevant factors are to be considered together and a conclusion reached on the basis of the whole.
Article 7 imposes obligation of not to cause significant harm. Article 8 provides obligation to cooperate. Article 9 is about the regular exchange of data and information of a hydrological, meteorological, hydro geological and ecological nature and related to the water quality as well as related forecasts. Article 33 is for the settlement of disputes, "If the parties concerned cannot reach agreement by negotiation requested by one of them, they may jointly seek the good offices of, or request mediation or conciliation by, a third party, or make use, as appropriate, of any joint watercourse institutions that may have been established by them or agree to submit the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice."
According to Shlomi Dinar, international water law provides only hints and suggestions as to how states should resolve their water disputes and co-ordinate their differing plans for the uses of a given river.
Falkenmark poses two questions relating to human behavior. Would an aggravating water scarcity be expected to strengthen or weaken the self-interest of riparian states? Would crisis conditions make governments less or more willing to cooperate? According to Conca et al, shared rivers create bargaining opportunities; states manage basins cooperatively for environmental protection, and for peaceful dispute resolution. In controversies over the use of a river flowing from India to East Pakistan (Bangladesh since 1971), India abandoned its earlier position and now advocates more flexible and equitable use. Examples from Austria, Chile, and Ethiopia may also be cited in this regard.
Lowi raises two questions: what guides the behavior of states in international river basins and what determines the potential for cooperation among adversaries in the utilization of scarce water resources. For comparative evidence, she analyzed three other cases of riparian dispute in the basin of the Euphrates, the Indus, and the Nile that share certain basic similarities with the principal case (Jordan River dispute). She argues that in all four cases, efforts have been made to reach a cooperative, basin-wide arrangement for the utilization of the waters of the river system. She found in none of the cases has the result been the "optimal" pattern of river basin development- via unitary, basin-wide planning and management. River basins with only two riparians are more numerous than those with more riparians. Prospects for cooperation are more likely when there are fewer actors.
Lending agencies, notably the World Bank, attempted to formulate guidelines for their own funding activities in relation to projects and programmes (irrigation, hydro-electric, flood control, navigation, drainage, sewerage, or involving industrial uses or possible pollution) that bear on such sensitive issues. The Bank believes that cooperation among riparians best ensures efficient utilization of international waterways. It encourages to riparian states to enter into agreements or understandings for utilization of the waterway, for which its good offices are available.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have identified more than 2,000 agreements on some aspect of trans-boundary water. Wolf (1999) puts the figure at 3,600 accords, with the earliest dating back more than a millennium; most are bilateral agreements dealing with river navigation. The Trans-boundary Freshwater Dispute Database lists more than 500 cooperative instruments involving 122 river or lake basins for the period 1874-2002. FAOLEX, FAO's on-line legal database, lists more than 100 international agreements for the period since 1980, including treaties and less formal accords such as memoranda of understanding, interagency cooperative agreements, and jointly endorsed meeting minutes. Hamner and Wolf (1997) conducted a partial content analysis of 145 basin treaties from 1874-1996; they found that although many of the treaty basins were multilateral, 86% of agreements were bilateral. On monitoring, enforcement, and dispute resolution, they found that almost two-thirds of the treaties contained provisions on information sharing and 54% contained monitoring provisions. However, 80% contained no enforcement mechanisms, and 54% had no conflict-resolution mechanism.
Conca et al studied the 62 international river agreements (for the period 1980-2000) involve 36 of the world's 263 international basins, or 14%. In 36 basins, agreements have been signed with one or more states. States involved in the largest number of agreements are: Germany: 9, France: 7, Brazil: 6 South Africa: 6 Bolivia: 5 United States: 5. Seventy four countries signed at least one agreement. Countries signed agreements by region are: Africa: 16, Asia: 12, Europe: 20, North America: 5, South America: 9
Tir and Ackerman analyzed water quantity treaties-which commonly allocate water among the signatories or specify water-flow goals (e.g. the 1982 India-Bangladesh treaty, the 1994 China-Mongolia treaty, the 1995 Mekong Basin treaty)- and water quality treaties - which typically seek to minimize pollution or salinity (the 1972 Italy-Switzerland treaty, the 1973 US-Mexico treaty, the 1990 Elbe River treaty). They also analyzed all river use treaties (dealing with navigation, fishing, etc.).
Wolfs (2007) database identifies about 500 treaties signed over roughly the last century. Other research addresses cooperation possibilities but chiefly focuses on physical watershed analysis, international law principles, or technical issues. Brochmann and Hensel show that river treaties help reduce the likelihood of Future River conflicts, relatively little attention has been paid to the theoretical and systematic empirical investigations of the politics of why countries agree to enter into river-managing treaties in the first place. Tir and Ackerman raised questions, such as to what extent security concerns cripple the possibility for river treaties? What role do economic factors play? Does water scarcity motivate or preclude cooperation? Does an upstream/downstream relationship really make river cooperation impossible?
'Conca et al consider that two-thirds (67%) of the world's 263 international river basins are bilateral (shared by two basin states), there is a surprisingly large proportion of the accords, 49 of 62, or 79%, that took place in multilateral basins. Yet within the 49 multilateral basins experiencing accords, the most common type of agreement, by a ratio of two to one (33 to 16), is bilateral that is, an agreement that excludes one or more of the states in a multilateral basin. Forty Six of the 62 accords are bilateral agreements.
The Third World states that have the most to gain from treaties, where the demand for drinking water will grow the most because of high population growth rates. Active involvement by the developed world and international organizations is necessary. Efforts to foster political development should be continued and much work put into changing the perception of riparian countries toward seeing each other as partners and not as competing foes that have to deplete the rivers' resources. Getting the countries to realize that their environmental security situations are interlinked would help foster river cooperation. Some related success has already taken place; recently, through the World Bank's efforts, bitter rivals India and Pakistan have entered a treaty regulating the use of three common rivers.
Gleick discussed treaties as a tool for peaceful resolution of the conflict. In 805, freedom of navigation was granted to a monastery in Europe. A bilateral treaty was signed in 1221 on the Weser River, which today flows through Germany into the North Sea. Such treaties have helped reduce the risks of water conflicts in many areas. The 1959 Nile River Treaty, the 1977 Agreement on Sharing of the Ganges Waters, and some limited bilateral agreements on the Euphrates between Iraq and Syria, and between Iraq and Turkey, are good examples of treaties. India and Nepal agreed by a December 1991 treaty to go forward on hydroelectric, irrigation, and flood control projects.
Gleick suggested that, "to make both regional treaties and broader international agreements over water more flexible, detailed mechanisms for conflict resolution and negotiations must be developed, basic hydrologic data must be acquired and completely shared with all parties, flexible rather than fixed water allocations are needed, and strategies for sharing shortages and apportioning responsibilities for floods need to be developed before shortages become an important factor." He also suggested that in the treaties all the affected parties should be included, a joint management committee to negotiate disputes, and flexibility to adapt to long-term changes in hydrologic conditions.
Factors of Treaty:Tir and Ackerman discussed three factors that deal more directly with the international river over which a treaty may be signed.
1) Water Availability:Potential demand for the river's resources (water) may seek a treaty in order to ensure future availability of river water for direct (i.e. drinking) or indirect (i.e. through agriculture) human consumption. Only when access to the resource becomes questionable- because of an increase in the need for the resource or because less of the resource is available, there will be willingness to compromise with other users to ensure future availability of the resource. Rapid growth has caused a rise in the demand for potable water, which puts a greater strain on the country's water resources, including international rivers it has access to. The problem is also compounded by related issues such as increased water pollution and diversion of water for irrigation and industrial use.
The key variable is not population growth itself but water availability per capita. The states that have an insufficient amount of water to meet their populations' demands will be pressured to secure access to freshwater sources, including international rivers. The country in need of additional water depends on the actions of the other riparian state (e.g. dam construction, pollution, and overuse). This is becoming a critical issue in the Middle East, where 232% of renewable freshwater resources are consumed annually (Hensel, Mitchell & Sowers, 2006). Some scholars argue that water is a strategic issue (e.g. Cooley, 1984; Klare, 2001; Lonergan, 2001). The need for additional water is hence likely to motivate armed conflict because it forces states into a zero-sum, competitive mindset where cooperative; positive-sum outcomes are seen as improbable (Elhance, 1999; Gleick, 1993; see also Furlong, Gleditsch & Hegre, 2006).
2) Geography of the River:The ability to cut off supply of a vital resource can allow the actor considerable influence over the disadvantaged party (Baldwin, 1979). The upstream state holds all the cards and does not need a treaty. In fact, realists would argue that the treaty would mean a relative loss of power. Mitchell & Keilbach (2001) argue that when the upstream state can pollute or divert the river, the downstream state has to absorb ail the consequences - regulatory treaties would be irrational because they would provide all the benefits to the victim and impose all the costs on the perpetrator. Lowi (1993) cites the example of Turkey’s favorable position on the Euphrates as a key obstacle to river cooperation with Syria and Iraq.
3) Number of Rivers:The greater number of rivers common to the states pro-vides multiple treaty-signing opportunities and multiple rivers may make compromise easier. Fischhendler and Feitelson's USA-Mexico case study demonstrates that the two countries were unable to reach an agreement over the use of Rio Grande water for some time. Yet, when Mexico suggested that they bring the Colorado River water into the negotiations. It seems likely that agreement would not have been reached on Colorado waters but for the fact that Mexican streams contributed water to the Rio Grande that farmers on the American side of the river, in Texas, wanted. Capitalizing on its advantage on the Rio Grande, Mexico insisted on resolving all water problems. It was in essence a trade of Rio Grande water (to the US) for Colorado water (to Mexico). In 1944, a treaty concerning the apportionment of both the Colorado and the Rio Grande was concluded between the two countries.
The doctrine of "equitable apportionment" seeks a fair balance between the rights and needs of the parties, must have technical help to determine and measure this balance. This means machinery for controlling and measuring the flow of water; it means also administrative machinery. The experience of the past such as that with the Rhine and Danube rivers shows that administrative bodies are essential; the United States has created such bodies both with Canada and with Mexico.
The international river basin administration was required to solve the problems in the river basin. International agencies were formed for the river administration; European authorities for the Rhine Rivers (Federal German Republic, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Great Britain and the United States- 1815) and the Danube (Ukraine, Austria and Yugoslavia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary- 1878), the North American commissions for the Canadian-United States (1909) and the Mexican- United States Commission (1944), and the two agencies in Asia for the Indus (India, Pakistan-1960) and Mekong River (Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia-1995).
V. Conclusion:Water is useful in various uses. Today its availability is core issue. World is" struggling to cope with water scarcity. Water security has vital place in the governments' agenda. Global climatic change will affect water availability. It is predicted that by the year 2025 a full 35 per cent of the world population will be living under conditions of water scarcity or stress. Formerly internal rivers have now become international water. Since the Second World War, the total number of the world's independent nations has doubled. Decolonization is the reason in the increase of number of International River. Non-navigational uses of waters get importance than navigational uses.
The Helsinki Rule (1966) and UN Watercourses Convention (1997) are the landmarks in the development of international laws of the uses of international rivers' water for non-navigational purposes. The concept changed from an "international river" to that of an "international drainage basin" or "International watercourse." International water laws are not accepted by all the UN member States. It has limitations and provides only hints and suggestions as to how states should resolve their water disputes.
Dominant states control water flow of the international river. Control of water flow was a major reason in the 1967 war between Israel and Arabs. The absence of war does not mean the absence of conflict and the effects of conflict are no less consequential than the effects of war. To avoid conflict countries tries to solve water-sharing conflict by signing the treaties. Non-state actors, like World Bank, provide assistance to find a solution on water dispute. It provides good offices to the conflicting countries. The treaty provides administration mechanism of international rivers. The foreign policy consideration plays a role in fostering cooperation among the riparian States. Water-sharing treaties may create tension among sub-national political units and the centre. In the federal system, sub-national political units have importance in the cooperation process with riparian State. Negotiation is the legitimate way of solving the water dispute than the way of war.
