Dispute Settlement Mechanisms (DSMs) are available to riparian states under public international laws applicable to international or transboundary freshwater disputes i.e. International Water Law (IWL). DSMs are generally divided into two groups: diplomatic (moving from negotiation, mediation and conciliation) and jurisdictional (arbitration and adjudication/judicial settlement). These could be considered to be part of any ‘tool kit’ of conflict prevention or resolution (Daza-Clark, 2022).

Watercourse agreements include negotiations or consultations as the ‘first-step’ DSM. As an extension of the obligation to cooperate, negotiation has proven one of the most effective mechanism for addressing water disputes, and it is always preferred before using other DSMs. A new approach referred to as water diplomacy is thus emerging (Daza-Clark, 2022).

In transboundary water disputes as a form of interstate negotiation, the line between ‘formal mechanisms’ and ‘informal ones’ is not a rigid one, and does not necessarily align with ‘more effective’ and ‘less effective’ interstate agreements. Disaggregating what causes ‘compliance pull’ and induces parties to stick to the commitments they agree to can be useful to negotiating an agreement because it provides a way of working with reluctance over certain issues or areas within water disputes (Daza-Clark, 2022).

Reluctance to formalise an agreement because of a specific issue relating to the agreement being difficult to plan for and where data on the issue is uncertain, such as future drought, can be in a sense compensated for by agreeing a clear process with an element of external third party involvement (Daza-Clark, 2022).

If a clear process is established for how an uncertain issue (e.g. drought) will be addressed and what processes will be triggered, this can be as or indeed more effective in protecting a neighbouring state than formalising commitments, given that formalised commitments may have to be renegotiated if something like drought or climate change plays out in unexpected ways (Daza-Clark, 2022).

Another option for approaching uncertainty is through the implementation of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), which may further understanding of the mutual gains that states could achieve through cooperation. Ideally, this would be operationalised as a cross-state initiative (Funnemark, 2020).

The existence of a watercourse agreement, however drafted, does not guarantee the settlement of potential disputes. Good faith and willingness of the riparian states makes these mechanisms effective and ultimately legitimate. Where no DSM seems to be available, riparian states may give consent to settle transboundary water disputes by referring to other international conventions of a general scope that the parties may have entered to, such as the Pact of Bogotá, the Protocol of the African Union, or arbitral agreements of general nature (Daza-Clark, 2022).

There are key principles in international law that are applicable to transboundary watercourse disputes regarding quantity of water. Though at times vague, international law can shift the focus away from states’ sovereign rights towards the need for cooperation between states and consideration of entities beyond states. In doing so, it provides guiding principles that can inform conflict management and resolution. This illustrates the value of international law consideration in dispute negotiation (Funnemark, 2020).

The principle of equitable and reasonable use as found in international watercourse law provides a basis for negotiating transboundary watercourse conflicts. Though this principle is vague in many ways, it embodies a key recognition of the shared nature of transboundary watercourses and consequently the necessity of considering the needs and rights of other riparian states (Funnemark, 2020).

Public, transparent, updated and cross-border Environmental Impact Assessments have the potential to bring a human needs perspective to transboundary watercourse disputes that are often perceived as a sovereign dispute. A human needs approach can emphasise possible mutual gains in effective transboundary watercourse management, by highlighting the interdependence of human needs of peoples on both sides of borders states (Funnemark, 2020).

Comparative frameworks in similar disputes have often worked well by regionalising their approach to cross-border water management, bringing in all the countries connected to the watercourses. The contribution of the treaties and mechanisms for cooperation agreed have often been how they establish processes for ongoing technical cooperation, which can continue behind the scenes even if there is ongoing public interstate dispute or even violent conflict states (Funnemark, 2020).

Resolving Water Conflicts: Dispute Settlement Mechanisms Applicable to International Water Resources

This report sets out in very general terms the international legal framework that supports dispute resolution, focusing in particular on a range of dispute mechanisms that are available to states with transboundary water disputes that could be considered to be part of any ‘tool kit’ of conflict avoidance or resolution. By elucidating the potential avenues and normative frameworks available to states that find themselves in transboundary hydro disputes, the report attempts to indicate that there is a flexibility to the design of DSMs and therefore suggests that states entering negotiations do not face a hard line between formal and informal approaches. It sets out mediation considerations in a policy oriented way by suggesting that what still seems to be most effective first step in watercourse negotiations is cooperation and negotiation or ‘water diplomacy’.

Water Resources and Inter-state Conflict: Legal Principles and the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD)

This report draws together the key principles of international law applicable to transboundary watercourse disputes regarding quantity of water, and assesses the extent to which these principles provide guidance in negotiating the Egypt-Ethiopia watercourse conflict whilst also giving consideration to other cases. The report examines how the principles of international law identified have been used in other similar negotiations, and may help guide the negotiations of the Egypt-Ethiopia conflict. A central component of the report suggests that a shift away from security centric zero-sum game water negotiations is possible if a more human needs based approach is adopted by states that find themselves in deadlocked hydro disputes.