Abstract The study of international freshwater treaties’ joint mechanisms for treaty implementation has thus far given little attention to the value of professional expertise in the leadership of these institutions, most of which are structured as international commissions. Few such commissions actually require certain expertise as a condition of appointment to the commission, raising the question as to whether such a requirement advantages the work of a commission, or not? This study addresses this deficiency by examining the role of professional expertise in the hydro-diplomacy of one of the oldest such commissions, the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico (IBWC), established by the 1944 Water Treaty. After situating the IBWC in its historic context and describing its treaty mandate and functions, we compare the pattern of commissioner appointments at its U.S. and Mexican national sections for evidence of the governments’ respect for the IBWC’s technical expertise and the value they attach to expert leadership at its respective national sections. We then review scholarly analysis of the IBWC’s performance for evidence of assessments of the IBWC’s technical orientation as it affects its hydro-diplomacy. We follow with a look at the IBWC’s work in resolving the three highest priority controversies on its docket since 1990. A preponderance of evidence suggests that requiring engineering expertise for commissioner appointments has not hindered, but facilitated the IBWC’s hydro-diplomacy in this period. Further comparative analysis is needed on other commissions to establish the value of requiring specific expertise as a condition of leadership for strengthening these commissions capacity to fulfill their treaty mandates.

中文翻译：

---

管理国际淡水委员会的专业知识：以美国和墨西哥国际边界和水委员会为例

摘要 迄今为止，关于国际淡水条约条约执行联合机制的研究很少关注专业知识在这些机构领导中的价值，其中大部分机构都是国际委员会。很少有这样的委员会实际上需要某些专门知识作为任命委员会的条件，这就提出了这样的要求是否有利于委员会工作的问题？本研究通过检查专业知识在此类最古老的委员会之一——美国和墨西哥国际边界和水委员会 (IBWC) 的水文外交中的作用来解决这一缺陷，该委员会由 1944 年《水条约》设立。在将 IBWC 置于其历史背景并描述其条约任务和职能之后，我们比较了其美国和墨西哥国家部门的专员任命模式，以证明政府尊重 IBWC 的技术专长以及他们对各自国家部门专家领导的重视。然后，我们回顾了对 IBWC 表现的学术分析，以证明对 IBWC 技术方向影响其水文外交的评估证据。我们接着看一看 IBWC 自 1990 年以来在解决其案卷中三个最高优先级争议方面的工作。大量证据表明，在此期间，需要工程专业知识来任命专员并没有阻碍，反而促进了 IBWC 的水文外交。