Multilevel Hydropolitics in the Euphrates–Tigris River Basin

The early transboundary water literature has tended to take a black-and-white approach to the study of transboundary water politics by framing water as an impetus for either conflict or cooperation, reflecting conventional realist and liberal approaches to International Relations (Naff and Matson, 1984; Gleick, 1993; Lowi, 1995; Wolf, 1998). Critical of this dichotomous approach, “London school” scholars have demonstrated that conflict and cooperation over transboundary water resources may coexist (Mirumachi, 2015; Zeitoun and Warner, 2006), and that an exclusively realist or liberal conception of hydropolitics runs the risk of overlooking the multi-scalar nature of hydropolitics (Harris and Alatout, 2010; Menga, 2016; Warner and Zawahri, 2012). The emphasis on interstate water conflict and cooperation has hindered an understanding of how institutions and actors who operate at domestic and transnational scales may influence transboundary water management processes. These processes are part of a broader “waterscape” in which the power dynamics and social relations between different water users shape and are shaped by water’s material flows and its constructed meaning. Furthermore, an examination of the multi-scalar nature of transboundary water interactions provides insight into how the politics of water happen beyond the scope of fixed territorial and administrative entities (Menga, 2016). Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private sector entities, local and municipal governments, landowners and farmers are just a few of the many actors with an interest in the management of transboundary water resources. In addition to this assortment of stakeholders, domestic political pressures can influence hegemonic states to alter their behaviors, while non-state actors operating at the domestic and transnational levels, such as NGO’s, can also impact a hegemon’s behavior (Warner and Zawahri, 2012)…