تبیین پارادایم‌های‌‌‌ رئالیسم و لیبرالیسم در مناسبات هیدروپلیتیکی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه مهندسی و مدیریت آب، دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

2 دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی‌ارشد مهندسی منابع آب، گروه مهندسی آبیاری و زهکشی، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران، البرز، ایران.

چکیده

 مسائل روزافزون هیدروپلیتیکی به یکی از مسائل راهبردی در روابط ‌بین‌الملل تبدیل شده‌اند. درخصوص آب­های فرامرزی، این مسائل به‌طور مستقیم تحت تأثیر مناسبات سیاسی و امنیتی بین دولت­ها قرار می‌‌گیرند که می­توانند راهبردهای سیاستی و امنیتی دولت­ها را تحت تأثیر قرار دهند. در طول تاریخ، پارادایم­های متفاوتی نسبت به مقوله مراودات هیدروپلیتیکی وجود داشته است که واکاوی آن‌ها از اهمیت بسزائی برخوردار است زیرا نمایان‌گر آن است که سیاست‌ها و راهبردهای اتخاذ شده در مناسبات هیدروپلیتیکی ریشه در چه نگرشی دارند، دارای چه نواقصی هستند و چگونه می­توانند بهبود یابند. این مقاله، با ماهیت بنیادی-نظری و روش توصیفی-تحلیلی به تبیین بازتاب پارادایم‌های رئالیسم و لیبرالیسم و نظریات آن‌ها در مناسبات هیدروپلیتیکی می‌پردازد. نتایج مطالعات نشان می­دهد به‌ دلیل وجود رابطه درهم‌تنیده‌ «سیاست، امنیت، هویت و آب»، تحلیل مناسبات هیدروپلیتیکی نیازمند فراپارادایمی اندیشیدن است زیرا هر پارادایم، تنها از زاویه­ای خاص به این مناسبات می­نگرد و انتخاب هر رویکرد می‌تواند تأثیر جدی بر نحوه تحلیل روابط و تبیین راهبردهای کشورها در مواجهه با مسائل هیدروپلیتیکی در نظام بین‌الملل داشته باشد. 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Realism and Liberalism Paradigms in Hydro-political Interactions

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hojjat Mianabadi 1
  • Seyedeh Zahra Ghoreishi 2
1 Assistant Professor, Water Engineering and Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 M.Sc. Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Introduction
Exploring and explaining hydro-political interactions requires an in-depth understanding of the nature of water issues. Water issues are in complex interactions with the values, norms, and ideas of the stakeholders, as well as nonlinear and dynamic interactions and feedbacks with social, political, and security dimensions, so they named a complex coupled human-natural ecosystem. Water systems, as common resources among two or more stakeholders (at local, national, international scales), not only ignore political boundaries, also cross multiple natural, societal, and cultural boundaries.
Analyzing hydro-political relations, also requires understanding the theories, values, and assumptions that interpret them. The Neo-Malthusians argue that population growth increases resource consumption, which causes resource depletion, exacerbates resource scarcity, increases resource competition and ultimately results in armed conflict. In contrast, the Cornucopians argue that there is enough energy and food to provide for the rising population of the world. They point out that technological innovation and cooperation can overcome resource scarcity. They believe that resource scarcity stimulates innovation and the development of technology and resource competition motivates cooperation between states and nations, rather than violent conflict. Hence, avoiding confining researchers' insights into a particular paradigm and developing a comprehensive understanding of different issues requires to learn for thinking across paradigms, or perhaps beyond paradigms.
Reflecting each paradigm of international relations in hydro-political relations offers a specific view of conflictive and or cooperative relations on shared water resources in transboundary basins. The purpose of this study is to investigate and address these key questions: according to different theories and paradigms of international relations, what kind of tools are fruitful for transboundary water resources in hydro-political interactions? In addition, what are the philosophy and roots of each attitude and deficiencies of each strategy in hydro-political interactions?
Methodology
This paper has a theoretical-fundamental methodology. In terms of data collection, data of this paper are qualitatively collected through the library methods. The theoretical framework of this research is formed by dominant paradigms in international relations. Therefore, at first, we will introduce the Realism paradigm and the reflections of these theories in hydro-politics interactions in form of three theories of Water War, Neomalthusians, and The Tragedy of the Commons, and also criticisms on these theories are presented. Second, the Liberalism paradigm and the reflections of these theories in hydro-political interactions in form of three theories of Cornucopians, the Economic Value of Water, and Water Institutions as well as criticism of these theories are presented. Finally, the nature of hydro-political interactions is explained.
Results and discussion
Exploring the paradigms of international relations, their theories on hydro-political interactions, and analysis of water conflicts and cooperation among countries, are so significant. Because it shows what are the deficiencies of policies and strategies and how can they improve. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding from the reflection of international relations paradigms in the field of international water and environmental issues is essential to gain more comprehensive understanding of hydro-political interactions and, accordingly, outlined appropriate strategies to sustain countries' water interactions. There have been different paradigms throughout the history of hydro-political interactions. It is important to understand the various paradigms throughout history. Because understanding history helps understand and analyze the current situation. Historical lessons can also help provide more comprehensive strategies and more sustainable policies for the future. Analysis the history of hydro-political interactions shows that:
1- The relation between conflict and cooperation in hydro-political interactions is complex. Some scholars use an either/or approach to examine this issue. Other scholars disagree with separating conflict and cooperation and contend that conflict and cooperation can co-exist.
2- Transboundary water interaction is an inherently political process and the outcomes are determined by the broader political context.
3- Conflict is not always undesirable. Like a virus in our body, we cannot remove conflict from our life but we should manage it. Conflict can be constructive and may lead to increase cooperation.
4- It is a misconception that conflict and cooperation are set against each other so that increasing conflict means decreasing cooperation.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Water Conflict and Cooperation
  • Tragedy of Commons
  • Water War
  • Interdependency
  • Water Institution
  1. References

    1. Abbasi Ashlaghi, M. (2004). The Analysis of Security in the Prevailing Paradigms of International Relations. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 7(25), 525–549. [In Persian]
    2. Alemu; Dinar. (2000). The Process of Negotiation Over International Water Disputes:The Case of the Nile Basin. International Negotiation, 5(2), 331–356. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718060020848794.
    3. Allan, T. (2002). The Middle East Water Question: Hydropolitics and the Global Economy. London/New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers.
    4. Amini, A.; Mianabadi, H.; Naddaf, N. (2018). The Role of Diplomacy in the Paris Agreement, Geopolitics Quarterly, 14(49), 148–175. [In Persian]
    5. Asgarkhani, A. (2016). International Regimes. Korsandi. [In Persian]
    6. Baechler, G. (1999). Violence through environmental discrimination (1st ed.). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9175-1.
    7. Barbari, M.; Kalantari, A.; Raghfar, H; Ghafari, G. (2017). The Impact of Natural Resources on the Development of Countries. Geography and Sustainability of Environment, 7(3), 81–96. [In Persian]
    8. Benjamin, P. (2007). The Rise of Hydro-Diplomacy – Strengthening foreign policy for transboundary waters. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat1849.
    9. Biswas, A. K. (2006). Challenging Prevailing Wisdoms: 2006 Stockholm Water Prize Laureate Lecture. Atizpan, Mexico: Atizapan: Third World Center for Water Management.
    10. Biswas, A. K. (2011). Cooperation or Conflict in Transboundary Water Management: Case Study of South Asia. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56(4), 662–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.572886.
    11. Bulloch, J. (1995). Water Wars: Coming Conflicts in the Middle East. Gollancz.
    12. Canter, M. J; Ndegwa, S. N. (2002). Environmental Scarcity and Conflict: A Contrary Case from Lake Victoria. Global Environmental Politics, 2(3), 40–62. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638002320310527.
    13. Cooley, J. K. (1984). The War over Water. Foreign Policy, 1(54), 3–26.
    14. De Stefano, L.; Edwards, P.; De Silva, L.; Wolf, A. T. (2010). Tracking Cooperation and Conflict in International Basins: Historic and Recent Trends. Water Policy, 12(6), 871–884. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2010.137.
    15. Delli Priscoli, J; Wolf, A. T. (2009). Managing and Transforming Water Conflicts. Cambridge University Press.
    16. Dirzauskaite, G; Ilinca, N. C. (2017). Understanding “Hegemony” in International Relations Theories: Comparative Analysis of Realism, Liberalism and Gramscian Approaches of Hegemony. M.Sc. Thesis, Aalborg University, Denmark.
    17. Elhance, A. (1999). Hydropolitics in the Third World: Conflict and Cooperation in International River Basins. https://doi.org/10.2307/20049664.
    18. Elhance, A. . (2000). Hydropolitics: Grounds for Despair, Reasons for Hope. International Negotiation, 5(2), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180600208 48730.
    19. Falkenmark, M. (1986). Fresh Waters as a Factor in Strategic Policy and Action. In A.H Westing (Ed.), Global resources and International Conflict (pp. 85–113).
    20. Falkenmark, M; Widstrand, C. (1992). Population and Water Resources: A Delicate Balance. Population Bulletin, 47(3), 1–36.
    21. Farhadi, M. (1992). “Clause” or a Traditional Cooperative and of the Persistence of Old Women in Iran. Social Sciences, 1(1), 129–162. [In Persian]
    22. Farhadi, M. (1993). Corms Pathology: Literature and Criticism of the Vote in How the Mastic. Social Sciences, 2(3), 97–124. [In Persian]
    23. Farhadi, M. (2002). Conceptual Context of “Participation”, Cooperation & Participation. Cooperation & Participation’, Social Sciences, 9(19), 7–34. [In Persian]
    24. Fereshtehpour, M.; Roghani, B; Mianabadi, H. (2015). Geopolitical Challenges of Transboundary Ground Water Resources Governance; With Emphasis on Iran, Geopolitics Quarterly, 11(39), 170–204. [In Persian]
    25. Frederick, K. (1996). Water as a Source of International Conflict. Resources, 1(123), 9–12.
    26. Frey, F. (1993). The Political Context of Conflict and Cooperation over International River Basins. Water International, 18(1), 54–68.
    27. Ganoulis, J; Fried, J. (2018). Transboundary Hydro-Governance from Conflict to Shared Management. In J. Ganoulis & J. Fried (Eds.), Transboundary Hydro-Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78625-4_8.
    28. Gardner, R.; Ostrom, E; Walker, J. M. (1990). The Nature of Common-Pool Resource Problems. Rationality and Society, 2(3), 335–358. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1043463190002003005.
    29. Ghoreishi, S. Z; Mianabadi, H.; Shafaee, S. M. M. (2019). The Role of Power in Water Diplomacy. Iran Water Resources Research, 15(2), 242–264. [In Persian]
    30. Gleditsch, N. (2003). Environmental conflict: Neomalthusians vs. cornucopians. In H. G. Brauch, P. H. Liotta, A. Marquina, P. F. Rogers, & M. E.-S. Selim (Eds.), Security and Environment in the Mediterranean:Conceptualising Security and Environmental Conflicts,Vol. 1, pp. 477–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55854-2_30
    31. Gleditsch, N. P. (1998). Armed Conflict and the Environment: A Critique of the Literature. Journal of Peace Research, 35(3), 381–400.
    32. Gleick, P. (1993). Water in Crisis. Pacific Institute for Studies in Dev., Environment & Security. Stockholm Env. Institute, Oxford Univ. Press.
    33. Goldenberg, S. (2014). Why global water shortages pose threat of terror and war.
    34. Gupta, J; Pahl-Wostl, C; Zondervan, R. (2013). ‘Glocal’ Water Governance: a Multi-Level Challenge in the Anthropocene. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6), 573–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.003.
    35. Hardin, G. (1968). Commons. Science, 162(June), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.162.3859.1243.
    36. Hensel, P. R; McLaughlin Mitchell, S; Sowers, T. E. (2006). Conflict Manage- ment of Riparian Disputes. Political Geography, 25(4), 383–411. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.11.001.
    37. Heywood, A. (2011). Global Politics. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
    38. Homer-Dixon, T. (2010). Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton University Press. [In Persian]
    39. Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1994). Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases. International Security, 19(1), 5–40. https://doi.org/23 07/2539147.
    40. Jägerskog, A. (2003). Why States Co-operate over Shared Water: The Water Negotiations in the Jordan River Basin (PhD Thesis, Linköping University, Sweden). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69509-7_19.
    41. Jägerskog, A; Phillips, D. (2006). Human Development Report 2006: Managing Trans-boundary Waters for Human Development. In Human Development Report Office Occasional Paper. UNDP.
    42. Julien, F. (2012). Hydropolotics is What Societies Make of it (or Why we Need a Constructivist Approach to the Geopolitics of Water), Sustainable Society, 4(1), 45–71.
    43. Kavianirad, M. (2019). Hydropolitics: Attitudes and Approaches. The Research Institute for Strategic Studies. [In Persian]
    44. Keohane, R., & Nye, J. S. (1987). Power and Interdependence Revisited. International Organization, 41(4), 725–753. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830 0027661.
    45. Keohane, R; Nye, J. S. (2001). Power and Interdependence (Third Edition). New York: Longman.
    46. Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Vol. 2). The University of Chicago.
    47. Liu, ; Dietz, T; Carpenter, S. R; Alberti, M; Folke, C; Moran, E; Taylor, W. W. (2007). Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science, 317(5844) ,1513–1516. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144004.
    48. Maleki, A. (2018). Environmental Politics in the Middle East. Strategic Studies of Public Policy, 8(27), 349–359. [In Persian]
    49. Menga, F. (2014). Power and Dams in Central Asia. PhD Thesis, The University of Cagliari, Italy.
    50. Mianabadi, H. (2016). Hydropolitics and Conflict Management in Transboundary River Basins (PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:4f913696-e6f0-4053-afdb-e8409b64a01e.
    51. Mianabadi, H; Amini, A. (2019). Complexity of Water, Politics, and Environment in the Euphrates and Tigris River Basins,Geopolitics Quarterly, 15(54), 54-86. [In Persian]
    52. Mianabadi, H; Mostert, E; Vande Giesen, N. (2015). Trans-boundary River Basin Management: Factors Influencing the Success or Failure of International Agreements. In K. W. Hipel, L. Fang, M. H. Bristow, & J. Cullmann (Eds.), Conflict Resolution in Water Resources and Environmental Management (pp. 133–143). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14215-9_7.
    53. Mirumachi, N. (2010). Study of Conflict and Cooperation in International Transboundary River Basins: The TWINS Framework. PhD Thesis, King’s College London, University of London, United Kingdom.
    54. Mirumachi, N. (2015). Transboundary Water Politics in the Developing World. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203068380
    55. Mirumachi, N; Allan, J. A. (2007). Revisiting Transboundary Water Gover- nance : Power , Conflict , Cooperation and the Political Economy. In Proceedings from CAIWA International Conference on Adaptive and Integrated Water Management: Coping with Scarcity. Basel, Switzerland, 1215.
    56. Mozaffari, A; Hajihosseini, H; Hajihosseini, M. (2019). The Role of Water Geopolitics on Sustainable Development and Security of Border Areas Based on the System Dynamics Approach, Geopolitics Quarterly, 15(53), 118–145. [In Persian]
    57. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evaluation of Institutions and Collective Action. Retrieved from http://www.ambridge.org.
    58. Percival, V; Homer-Dixon, T. (1998). Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of South Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 35(3), 279–298.
    59. Phillips, D; Daoudy, M; McCaffrey, S; Öjendal, J; Turton, A. (2006). Trans-Boundry WAter Co-Operation as a Tool for Conflict Pevention and Broader Benefit Sharing. Stockholm: Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
    60. Pohl, B; Kramer, A; Hull, W; Blumstein, S; Abdullaev, I; Kazbekov, J; Görlitz, S. (2017). Rethinking Water in Central Asia. In Adelphi and CAREC, Technical Report.
    61. Rees, G. (2010). The Role of Power and Institutions in Hydrodiplomacy: Does Realism or Neo-Liberal Institutionalism Offer a Stronger Theoretical Basis for Analysing Inter-State Cooperation over Water Security ? M.Sc. Thesis, University of London, United Kingdom.
    62. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi.
    63. Selby, J. (2005). Oil and Water: The Contrasting Anatomies of Resource Conflicts. Government and Opposition, 40(2), 200–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-7053.2005.00150.x.
    64. Shamir, U; Grand, S; Grand, N. (2009). Water is a Source of Cooperation rather than War. Nature, 459(7243), 31. https://doi.org/10.1038/459031c.
    65. Starr, J. R. (1991). Water Wars. Foreign Policy, 1(82), 17–36.
    66. Swain, A. (2004). Managing Water Conflict: Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. London: Routledge.
    67. Swain, A. (2011). Challenges for Water Sharing in the Nile basin: Changing Geo-Politics and Changing Climate. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56(4), 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.577037.
    68. Tafesse, F; Eguzozie, K. (2009). Efficient Hydrolysis of 4-Nitrophenylphosphate Catalyzed by Copper Bipyridyl in Microemulsions. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 72(3), 954–959. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOENV.2008 .01.010.
    69. Valigholizadeh, A. (2019). Explaining the Political-Geopolitical Role of Water in the Existence of Israel, Geopolitics Quarterly, 15(53), 85–117. [In Persian]
    70. Vander Zaag, P; Savenije, H. H. G. (2000). Towards Improved Management of Shared River Basins: Lessons from the Maseru Conference. Water Policy, 2(1–2), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-7017(99)00027-6.
    71. Varone, F; Reynard, E; Kissling-Naf, I; Mauch, C. (2002). Institutional Resource Regimes: The Case of Water Management in Switzerland. Integrated Assessment, 3(1), 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.3.1.78.7412.
    72. Villiers, M. De. (1999). Water Wars: Is the World’s Water Running Out? Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
    73. Waltz, K. (1988). The Origins of War. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 615–628.
    74. Westing, Arthur H. (1986). Global Resources and International Conflict: Environmental Factors in Strategic Policy and Action. New York: Oxford University Press.
    75. Whittington, D; Wu, X; Sadof, C. (2005). Water Resources Management in the Nile Basin: The Economic Value of Cooperation. Water Policy, 7(3), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2005.0015.
    76. Wolf, (1998). Conflict and cooperation along international waterways. Water Policy, 1(2), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-7017(98)00019-1.
    77. Wolf, A. T. (2007). Shared Waters: Conflict and Cooperation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32(1), 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev .energy.32.041006.101434
    78. Wolf, A. T; Hamner, J. (2000). Trends in Transboundary Water Disputes and Dispute Resolution. In Miriam R. Lowi & B. R. Shaw. (Eds.), Environment and security: discourses and practices (p. 225). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
    79. Wolf, A. T; Yoffe, S. B; Giordano, M. A. (2003). International Waters: Identifying Basins at Risk. Water Policy, 5(1), 29–60.
    80. Wu, X. (2000). Game-Theoretical Approaches to Water Conflicts in International River Basins: A Case Study of the Nile Basin. Phd Thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, United States.
    81. Yoffe, S; Wolf, A. T; Giordano, M. (2003). Conflict and cooperation over international freshwater resources: indicators of basins at risk. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39(5), 1109–1126. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1752-1688.2003.tb03696.x.
    82. Young, O. (2003). Environmental Governance: The Role of Institutions in Causing and Confronting Environmental Problems. International Environmental Agreements, 3(4), 377–393.
    83. Zawahri, N. (2008). Capturing the Nature of Cooperation, Unstable Cooperation, and Conflict Over International Rivers: The Story of the Indus, Yarmouk, Euphrates, and Tigris Rivers. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 8(3), 286–310.
    84. Zeitoun, M. (2008). Power and Water in the Middle East: The Hidden Politics of the Palestinian–Israeli Water Conflict. London, UK: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd.
    85. Zeitoun, M; Mirumachi, N. (2008). Transboundary Water Interaction I: Reconsidering Conflict and Cooperation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(4), 297–316. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10784-008-9083-5.

    Zeitoun, M; Mirumachi, N; Warner, J. F. (2011). Transboundary Water Interaction II: The Influence of ‘Soft’ Power. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10784-010-9134-6.

دوره 18، شماره 65
فروردین 1401
صفحه 150-186
  • تاریخ دریافت: 14 فروردین 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 14 مرداد 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 30 مرداد 1399
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 01 فروردین 1401