Can International Agreements Solve Transboundary Water Conflicts

Written by Romano Tucci (MSc International Relations)

As the world population continues to grow, a main concern for politicians, scientists, and ordinary citizens is whether the resources we have at our disposal will be sufficient for the increase in mouths to feed. Of course, food production is one of the most discussed topics when mentioning resource scarcity, but even more salient is the issue of how much freshwater we have left for agricultural efforts. In fact, this global water crisis threatens to put half of the world’s food production at risk in the next 25 years. This has pressured countries into making the most of their own freshwater supply, using it not only for consumption (agriculture, industries, and municipalities) but also for non-consumptive usage such as hydropower, recreation, transport, and fisheries.

One of the main water sources used is rivers, which, although only accounting for 0.49% of the globe’s surface freshwater, are still among the most used resources for obtaining freshwater. However, in regions where water sources span multiple countries, disputes over access and allocation are becoming a growing geopolitical concern. While the principle of territorial sovereignty includes a country’s right to freely exploit natural wealth and resources according to the UN’s Resolution 1803 (XVII), states sharing the same water source have had issues with pollution from one state disproportionately affecting another, making the nature of transboundary water conflicts all the more legally confusing.

This piece will first define and provide the key drivers of transboundary water conflicts. It will then focus on three case studies that examine the impact and effectiveness of international agreements in resolving these conflicts. Finally, it will propose potential solutions, such as expanding ratification into the UN Watercourses Convention and third-party mediation, followed by some concluding thoughts.

Transboundary Water Conflicts: Definitions and Causes

First, a transboundary water source is a freshwater resource that spans across one or more international borders. For example, the Mekong River flows through 6 Asian countries, starting in China and ending in Vietnam. Maritime conflicts such as territorial claims in the South China Sea are not considered transboundary conflicts as they focus on who owns parts of the Ocean rather than how the water is shared, as well as being governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea instead of the UN Watercourses Convention and other regional treaties. Therefore, a transboundary water conflict is when two or more countries dispute the allocation, use, management, or quality of a shared water source.

Over the years, such conflicts have been exacerbated and increased the risk of potential armed conflict due to several factors: first, population growth has led to more water demand for agriculture, industry, and domestic use. Rapid urbanization is also straining existing infrastructure and leading to over-extraction of rivers and aquifers. Furthermore, global warming is altering precipitation patterns, reducing river flows, and intensifying the frequency of droughts and floods. This, coupled with the melting of glaciers that feed rivers, threatens the long-term availability of freshwater supplies. In addition, upstream countries have more control over the water flow, advantaging them over downstream countries that depend on regular and sufficient freshwater supply. This unequal distribution of access and control over water resources creates political tensions and economic disparities. Moreover, infrastructure development can also refer to the construction of dams, irrigation projects, and hydroelectric plants upstream that can limit and pollute water downstream.

However, the most difficult and pressing issue for international agreements to be signed into action regarding transboundary conflicts is the legal and institutional gaps. Many transboundary rivers lack agreements to regulate water sharing. Additionally, existing agreements often lack enforcement mechanisms or fail to account for changing environmental and socio-economic conditions. The current multilateral treaty, the UN Watercourses Convention, was adopted in 1997 and went into force in 2014, with no amendments or updates since its adoption. Because of this, transboundary water resources have been considered a legal grey area in international law. In addition, only 40 UN-recognized countries have ratified this convention, meaning that a majority of countries “play by their own rules.”

The Nile Bassin Dispute

The Nile River, one of the world’s longest and most historically significant waterways, flows through 11 African countries, serving as a vital freshwater source for millions. However, its unequal distribution has long been a source of political and economic tensions, particularly between Egypt and Ethiopia. The construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile, a major tributary of the Nile, has further escalated these tensions, as Ethiopia seeks to expand its hydropower capacity, while Egypt fears the dam will disrupt its water supply. The situation is particularly challenging because none of these countries have ratified the UN Watercourses Convention, which could have provided an international legal framework for negotiating fair water-sharing agreements.

Despite the absence of the UN Watercourses Convention, there have been previous attempts at regional cooperation over the Nile’s resources. The 1929 Nile Waters Agreement (between Egypt and Britain, which then controlled Sudan) and the 1959 Nile Waters Treaty (between Egypt and an independent Sudan) largely favored Egypt, granting it significant control over the river’s flow and denying upstream countries, including Ethiopia, a legal claim to its waters. However, these agreements are now widely contested as outdated and do not include key Nile Basin states, particularly Ethiopia, which contributes about 85% of the river’s total water flow through the Blue Nile. The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), established in 1999, was meant to facilitate cooperation between Nile states, but it has been unable to enforce binding agreements on water allocation. As Ethiopia moves forward with GERD, and Egypt continues to demand assurances over water flow, the lack of a binding international legal framework remains a major obstacle to resolving the dispute. Without ratification of global conventions or an updated regional treaty, the Nile dispute risks further diplomatic escalations, economic instability, and potential regional conflict over Africa’s most important river.

The Indus Water Treaty

The Indus River, one of the longest rivers in South Asia, flows through China, India, and Pakistan, providing a crucial water source for millions of people. The river’s management has long been a contentious issue between India and Pakistan, two neighboring nations with a history of geopolitical tensions. Despite their frequent political conflicts, both countries signed the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in 1960, brokered by the World Bank, making it one of the most enduring examples of successful water-sharing agreements. The treaty allocated control over the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) to India, while Pakistan was granted control over the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab). This division was meant to ensure a stable and predictable water supply for both nations, fostering cooperation despite broader political disputes. However, neither India nor Pakistan has ratified the UN Watercourses Convention (1997), meaning that their water-sharing arrangements rely entirely on the bilateral treaty rather than a multilateral legal framework.

In recent years, the effectiveness of the Indus Waters Treaty has been called into question, with both nations accusing each other of treaty violations. India has pursued hydropower projects on the western rivers, arguing that they fall within the treaty's provisions, while Pakistan has opposed these projects, fearing they could reduce downstream water flow and threaten its agricultural sector. Additionally, India has threatened to review or revoke the treaty in response to security tensions, particularly after conflicts over Kashmir. These growing disputes highlight the limitations of bilateral treaties in addressing changing environmental, political, and economic conditions. The absence of an updated legal framework, such as one provided by the UN Watercourses Convention, means that no neutral enforcement mechanism exists to resolve disputes impartially. As climate change and increasing water demand put further strain on the Indus River system, the durability of the treaty remains uncertain, and without renewed diplomatic efforts or an updated agreement, future water conflicts between India and Pakistan could intensify.

The Mekong River Conflict

The Mekong River, stretching over 4,350 kilometers and flowing through six countries—China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam—serves as a crucial lifeline for millions of people, particularly in Southeast Asia. While Vietnam has ratified the UN Watercourses Convention, none of the other Mekong countries have, creating a significant legal gap in transboundary water governance. This has allowed China, the upstream power, to exert considerable control over the river's flow, largely through a series of dams and water management projects that impact downstream nations. China’s Lancang-Mekong cascade of dams, built without direct consultation with its downstream neighbors, has led to disruptions in seasonal water flows, threatening fisheries, agriculture, and livelihoods in countries like Cambodia and Vietnam.

Despite the absence of a legally binding regional framework, some cooperative mechanisms exist, such as the Mekong River Commission (MRC), established in 1995 by Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam to promote sustainable management. However, the MRC lacks enforcement power and does not include China, the most influential stakeholder in the Mekong’s hydrology. In contrast, China has instead promoted its own alternative, the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (LMC) framework, which prioritizes economic and infrastructure development but does not provide binding water-sharing commitments. This power imbalance between China and the downstream states continues to fuel diplomatic tensions, particularly as Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand experience severe droughts and unpredictable water levels due to upstream water control. Without a binding legal framework or stronger enforcement mechanisms, the Mekong dispute underscores the challenges of managing transboundary water conflicts in the absence of widespread international legal commitment.

Potential Solutions and Concluding Thoughts

Addressing transboundary water conflicts requires an approach that incorporates legal, institutional, and diplomatic strategies. Strengthening international legal frameworks, such as increasing ratification of the UN Watercourses Convention, could provide a more uniform and enforceable system for dispute resolution. While treaties like the Indus Waters Treaty and regional institutions such as the Mekong River Commission have helped facilitate cooperation, their effectiveness has been limited by weak enforcement mechanisms and the absence of key stakeholders. Future agreements must include clear enforcement provisions, ensuring that violations lead to tangible consequences. A study on treaty design and water disputes also suggests that adaptive and flexible agreements, which account for climate change and evolving socio-economic conditions, are more likely to succeed in the long term.

Beyond legal frameworks, institutional cooperation and information-sharing mechanisms are critical. The lack of transparency in hydrological data often fuels distrust between countries, as seen in the Mekong and Indus River conflicts. Establishing joint monitoring systems and real-time data-sharing agreements could reduce tensions by promoting scientific, rather than politically driven, decision-making. Moreover, existing institutions like the Nile Basin Initiative and the Mekong River Commission must be strengthened to serve as binding regulatory bodies rather than advisory organizations. Lessons from past water-sharing agreements, particularly regarding the role of third-party mediation, show that neutral, international arbitration mechanisms—such as involving the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—can help depoliticize disputes and ensure fair outcomes.

Transboundary water conflicts will only intensify as climate change, population growth, and industrial demands place greater strain on freshwater resources. While existing treaties and institutional frameworks have partially mitigated disputes, their limitations highlight the need for stronger, enforceable international agreements. Expanding ratification of the UN Watercourses Convention, establishing binding regional water-sharing treaties, and enhancing scientific and institutional collaboration can pave the way for sustainable, equitable water governance. Without proactive measures, disputes over shared water resources will continue to fuel geopolitical instability, economic disparities, and potential armed conflicts. The path forward requires collective commitment from states, international organizations, and scientific bodies to ensure that water, a fundamental human necessity, becomes a catalyst for cooperation rather than a source of division.