Fragmented Governance of International Rivers: Negotiating Bilateral versus Multilateral Treaties

Despite warnings of interstate conflict over shared water resources, states are reaching hundreds of treaties and agreements over their international rivers. We have extensive knowledge about the negotiations process of individual treaties, but there is a paucity of systematic analysis of the forces influencing treaty formation. In addition, the few quantitative studies examining the formation of agreements fail to consider the different factors influencing the rise of bilateral versus multilateral agreements on multilateral basins. Correcting this omission is important because scholars have discovered that states frequently sign bilateral agreements over multilateral rivers, which contradicts the integrated river basin management approach advocated by environmentalists, engineers, and water experts. This study seeks to fill this vacuum within the existing literature by distinguishing between the formation of bilateral treaties on bilateral and multilateral basins and comparing these bilateral forms of cooperation to the formation of multilateral treaties on multilateral basins. Through quantitative analysis, we argue that treaty type is a by-product of state interest, transaction costs, and distribution of power.

尽管已有预警提及共享水资源（shared water resources）可能引发国家间冲突，但各国仍就国际河流（international rivers）达成了数百项条约与协定。目前学界对单个条约的谈判进程已有较为充分的认知，但针对影响条约缔结的各类因素，尚缺乏系统性分析（systematic analysis）。此外，现有为数不多的探讨协定缔结的定量研究（quantitative studies），未考虑多边流域（multilateral basins）内双边协定（bilateral agreements）与多边协定（multilateral agreements）的影响因素存在差异这一情况。纠正这一研究疏漏具有重要意义：学界已发现，各国常会就多边河流签署双边协定，这与环保人士、工程师及水利专家所倡导的流域综合管理（integrated river basin management）理念相悖。本研究旨在填补现有文献中的这一研究空白：通过区分双边流域（bilateral basins）与多边流域下双边条约的缔结情况，并将此类双边合作形式与多边流域内多边条约的缔结过程进行对比。通过定量分析，本研究提出：条约类型是国家利益、交易成本（transaction costs）与权力分布（distribution of power）共同作用的产物。