当前位置: X-MOL 学术Environ. Sci. Policy › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Powering hydrodiplomacy: How a broader power palette can deepen our understanding of water conflict dynamics
Environmental Science & Policy ( IF 6 ) Pub Date : 2020-12-01 , DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.015
Jeroen Warner , Rens de Man

Abstract The present contribution argues for taking power in hydrodiplomacy seriously and claims that the hydrodiplomacy literature is too focused on the ‘puzzling’ of diplomacy at the expense of the ‘powering’. Legitimate rule needs a combination of hard (coercion) and soft power (consent). We posit that different styles can be distinguished in negotiation by focusing on the use of power resources. With this understanding, negotiations can be analysed with greater clarity. To transpose the ‘powering’ and ‘puzzling’ from the policy sciences to diplomacy, we will draw on the main schools of International Relations theory: Realism, Institutionalism, Constructivism, and Critical theory. Each of them brings insights relevant to different uses of power and in order to understand the negotiations in practice we need all four perspectives. We combine this approach with insights from a particular power typology, and various aspects of time, including uncertainty and path dependency. To exemplify our approach, we draw on a transboundary example involving state and non-state actors (dispute over the use of the Scheldt between The Netherlands and Belgium) and a local example of hydro-political interactions (irrigation system in Yemen). While the Scheldt case appears a good example of a move to common institution building over time, a closer look reveals the influence of “back tables”, popular movements and decision-making supported by crises, past traumas and future uncertainties, highlighting the time factor. The Yemeni case illustrates likewise that institutions and better arguments do not necessarily win out while different sources of power are mobilised. We conclude that a focus on institutions, as in the dominant literature, does not tell the whole story in hydrodiplomacy. Our approach enables us in a structured manner to identify additional insights about preferred styles of negotiation.

中文翻译:

为水外交提供动力:更广泛的权力调色板如何加深我们对水冲突动态的理解

摘要 目前的贡献主张认真对待水外交中的权力,并声称水外交文献过于关注外交的“困惑”而忽视了“权力”。合法的统治需要硬(胁迫)和软实力(同意)的结合。我们假设谈判中可以通过关注权力资源的使用来区分不同的风格。有了这种理解,就可以更清楚地分析谈判。为了将“权力”和“困惑”从政策科学转移到外交,我们将借鉴国际关系理论的主要流派:现实主义、制度主义、建构主义和批判理论。他们每个人都带来了与不同权力使用相关的见解,为了理解实践中的谈判,我们需要所有四个视角。我们将这种方法与来自特定权力类型和时间的各个方面(包括不确定性和路径依赖)的见解相结合。为了举例说明我们的方法,我们借鉴了一个涉及国家和非国家行为者的跨界示例(荷兰和比利时之间使用斯海尔德河的争议)和一个当地的水利政治互动示例(也门的灌溉系统)。虽然 Scheldt 案似乎是随着时间的推移转向共同制度建设的一个很好的例子,但仔细观察会发现“幕后黑手”的影响、危机、过去的创伤和未来的不确定性支持的大众运动和决策,突出了时间因素. 也门的案例同样表明,在动员不同的权力来源时,制度和更好的论据不一定会胜出。我们得出的结论是,与主流文献一样,关注制度并不能说明水文外交的全部情况。我们的方法使我们能够以结构化的方式确定有关首选谈判风格的其他见解。
更新日期:2020-12-01
down
wechat
bug