Powering Hydrodiplomacy Analysis

Study Notes

The article argues that power is crucial in understanding hydrodiplomacy.
Current literature on hydrodiplomacy focuses too much on diplomacy itself and not enough on the use of power.
Effective rule and negotiation need both hard power (coercion) and soft power (persuasion).
Varying negotiation styles exist, differing in their use of power resources.
Analyzing negotiations through the lens of Realism, Institutionalism, Constructivism, and Critical theory provides a more comprehensive view.
A typology of power resources ("power animals") and the time factor (uncertainty, past traumas, future uncertainties, path dependency) are important considerations in hydrodiplomacy.
A transboundary example (Scheldt River dispute) and a local example (Yemeni irrigation system) illustrate the importance of considering power and time in hydrodiplomacy.
Institutions alone aren't sufficient to resolve hydrodiplomatic conflicts; other power sources need to be explored.

Classical state diplomacy and network-based hydrodiplomacy coexist.
Numerous non-state actors now participate in diplomacy.
Non-state actors may mimic state actors in diplomacy but bring unique dynamics.
Water conflicts are complex due to their visibility and symbolic nature.
The potential for water wars, though less likely, is a concern.
Large infrastructural projects often raise conflicts.
Hydrodiplomacy requires a broad approach to understand the varying power dynamics and how actors frame water conflicts.

Current literature on hydrodiplomacy often overlooks the significant role of hard power.
Current definitions of hydrodiplomacy tend to assume actors are benevolent and committed to peace.
This omission prevents a full understanding of conflicts and diplomatic interactions.
Different power resources can be employed in different negotiation styles.
Realist, institutionalist, constructivist, and critical theories offer unique perspectives on power and negotiation styles.

Power resources are critical in diplomacy and bargaining.
Actors' choice of negotiation styles depends on various factors.
These factors include organizational culture, available power resources, position within a hierarchy, and "back-table" considerations.
The "power animals" (lion, fox, bear, owl) are different types of power described by John Scott.
The time element, including the "shadow of the future" and "shadow of the past", also influences negotiation.

The Scheldt River dispute illustrates the use of different power styles over time as institutions take centre stage and actors engage in power struggles.
The case from Yemen highlights how different power resources (especially those involving institutions) are employed in local hydro-political interactions.

Exploring multiple power dimensions and styles is essential in expanding hydrodiplomacy analysis.
The framework presented offers a more comprehensive approach to understanding diplomacy in water-related conflicts, considering various actors and their motivations.

Podcast