International Disputes

An international or territorial dispute is a disagreement over the rights of two or more states with regard to control of a given piece of land. International disputes find their roots in a number of issues including natural resources, ethnic or religious demography, and even ambiguous treaties. When left unchecked, international disputes have caused criminal actions, terrorism, wars, and even genocideall in the name of reasserting rights over territory. The UN Charter in no way allows states to use force to annex territory from any other state: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Arbitration can be made an appropriate international dispute settlement mechanism for international disputes when arbitration agreements are carefully drafted. Arbitration is especially valuable in contract disputes between a private company located in a Western nation and a government agency or government-controlled company in a developing state as well as in the framework of East-West trade agreements. Parties to international contracts often favor arbitration because compared to litigation they believe it is inexpensive, rapid, informal, generative of consensus, and a means of minimizing or avoiding the need for lawyers. These advantages are partially attainable through the careful structuring of the arbitration agreement, but without the proper agreement they can prove illusory. If the advantages of arbitration are to be achieved, the drafter of an arbitration clause must be particularly aware of the role of law in arbitration. At its inception, arbitration depends on statutory approval; the arbitral award often must be converted into a judgment for enforcement purposes. Also, throughout the arbitration process, the law intervenes (a factor which a good draftsman of an arbitration agreement should bear in mind). The drafter of an arbitration agreement must also take into account the rules for contesting the validity of an arbitral award in the jurisdiction in which the dispute is heard. Generally, parties to an international contract should not opt for arbitration in the event of a dispute without careful consideration of the reasons for its ues and the thoughtful, precise drafting of the arbitration agreement. China places restrictions on the rights of foreign warships to exercise innocent passage of territorial waters, claims extensive sovereignty in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and has made maritime claims citing historic waters. China asserts that these actions are consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Convention On The Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS) Treaty. The United States does not recognize China's claims and restrictions encroach upon U.S. national rights and interfere with the ability of the theater Combatant Commander PACOM to employ forces in the Western Pacific littoral. PACOM must continue to conduct FON operations to assert U.S. claims while engaging regional partners such as Japan. The U.S. must assist in developing workable solutions to South China Sea maritime disputes that are consistent with U.S. interests. Some of the claims made by coastal nations are inconsistent with international law. The United States does not recognize those maritime claims that are not in conformity with customary international law, as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention. Examples include excessive straight baseline claims, territorial sea claims in excess of 12 nautical miles (nm), and other claims that unlawfully impede freedom of navigation and overflight. The United States has protested excessive claims and conducted operational assertions against such excessive claims under the Freedom of Navigation Program. The U.S. Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program began in 1979 and is designed to be a peaceful exercise of the rights and freedoms of navigation and overflight recognized under international law. United States policy is to accept and act in accordance with the balance of interests relating to traditional uses of theoceans--such as navigation and overflight. In this respect, the United States l recognizes the rights of other states in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the Convention, so long as the rights and freedoms of the United States and others under international law are recognized by such coastal states. In addition, United States policy is to exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the convention. The United States will not, however, acquiesce in unilateral acts of other states designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the international community in navigation and overflight and other related high seas uses. Although some US operations receive public scrutiny (such as those that have occurred in the Black Sea, in the Gulf of Sidra, and in the South China Sea), most do not. Since 1979, U.S. military ships and aircraft have exercised their

rights and freedoms in all oceans against objectionable claims of more than 35 countries at the rate of some 30-40 per year.

Water conflict
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Water war" redirects here. For the type of mock combat, see Water fight. Water conflict is a term describing a conflict between countries, states, or groups over an access to water resources.[1][2][3] The United Nations recognizes that water disputes result from opposing interests of water users, public or private.[4] A wide range of water conflicts appear throughout history, though rarely are traditional wars waged over water alone.[5] Instead, water has historically been a source of tension and a factor in conflicts that start for other reasons. However, water conflicts arise for several reasons, including territorial disputes, a fight for resources, and strategic advantage.[6] These conflicts occur over both freshwater and saltwater, and between international boundaries. However, conflicts occur mostly over freshwater; because freshwater resources are necessary, yet limited, they are the center of water disputes arising out of need for potable water.[7] As freshwater is a vital, yet unevenly distributed natural resource, its availability often impacts the living and economic conditions of a country or region. The lack of cost-effective water desalination techniques in areas like the Middle East,[8] among other elements of water crises can put severe pressures on all water users, whether corporate, government, or individual, leading to tension, and possibly aggression.[9] Recent humanitarian catastrophes, such as the Rwandan Genocide or the war in Sudanese Darfur, have been linked back to water conflicts.[1]

Causes
Water conflicts occur because the demand for water resources and potable water extend far beyond the amount of water actually available. Elements of a water crisis may put pressures on affected parties to obtain more of a shared water resource, causing diplomatic tension or outright conflict. 1.1 billion people are without adequate drinking water; the potential for water disputes is correspondingly large. Besides life, water is necessary for proper sanitation , commercial services, and the production of commercial goods. Thus numerous types of parties can become implicated in a water dispute. For example, corporate entities may pollute water resources shared by a community, or governments may argue over who gets access to a river used as an international or inter-state boundary.

The broad spectrum of water disputes makes them difficult to address. Locale, local and international law, commercial interests, environmental concerns, and human rights questions make water disputes complicated to solve combined with the sheer number of potential parties, a single dispute can leave a large list of demands to be met by courts and lawmakers.

Economic and trade issues

Waters viability as a commercial resource, which includes fishing, agriculture, manufacturing, recreation and tourism, among other possibilities, can create dispute even when access to potable water is not necessarily an issue. As a resource, some consider water to be as valuable as oil, needed by nearly every industry, and needed nearly every day.
[10]

Water shortages can completely cripple an industry just

as it can cripple a population, and affect developed countries just as they affect countries with lessdeveloped water infrastructure. Water-based industries are more visible in water disputes, but commerce at all levels can be damaged by a lack of water. International commercial disputes between nations can be addressed through the World Trade Organization, which has water-specific groups like a Fisheries Center that provide a unified judicial protocol for commercial conflict resolution. Still, water conflict occurring domestically, as well as conflict that may not be entirely commercial in nature may not be suitable for arbitration by the WTO.

Fishing
Historically, fisheries have been the main sources of question, as nations expanded and claimed portions of oceans and seas as territory for domestic commercial fishing. Certain lucrative areas, such as the Bering Sea, have a history of dispute; in 1886 Great Britain and the United States clashed over sealing fisheries,
[11]

and today Russia surrounds a pocket of international water known as the Bering Sea
[12]

Donut Hole. Conflict over fishing routes and access to the hole was resolved in 1995 by a convention referred to colloquially as the Donut Hole Agreement.

Pollution
Corporate interest often crosses opposing commercial interest, as well as environmental concerns, leading to another form of dispute. In the 1960s, Lake Erie, and to a lesser extent, the other Great Lakes were polluted to the point of massive fish death. Local communities suffered greatly from dismal water quality until the United States Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972.
[13]

Water pollution poses a significant health risk, especially in heavily industrialized, heavily populated areas like China. In response to a worsening situation in which entire cities lacked safe drinking water, China passed a revised Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law.
[14]

The possibility of polluted water making

it way across international boundaries, as well as unrecognized water pollution within a poorer country

brings up questions of human rights, allowing for international input on water pollution. There is no single framework for dealing with pollution disputes local to a nation.

Classifications
According to Aaron Wolf, et all.
[15]

there were 1831 water conflicts over transboundary basins from 1950

2000. They categorizied these events as following: No water-related events on the extremes Most interactions are cooperative Most interactions are mild Water acts as irritant Water acts as unifier Nations cooperate over a wide variety of issues Nations conflict over quantity and infrastructure

Response
International organizations play the largest role in mediating water disputes and improving water management. From scientific efforts to quantify water pollution, to the World Trade Organizations efforts to resolve trade disputes between nations, the varying types of water disputes can be addressed through current framework. Yet water conflicts that go unresolved become more dangerous as water becomes more scarce and global population increases.
[16]

United Nations
The UN International Hydrological Program aims to help improve understanding of water resources and foster effective water management.
[17]

But by far the most active UN program in water dispute resolution is

[18]

its Potential Conflict to Co-operation Potential mission, which is in its third phase, training water professionals in the Middle East and organizing educational efforts elsewhere. Its target groups include

diplomats, lawmakers, civil society, and students of water studies; by expanding knowledge of water disputes, it hopes to encourage co-operation between nations in dealing with conflicts. UNESCO only just recently published a complete map of transboundary aquifers.
[19]

Academic work

focusing on water disputes has yet to yield a consistent method for mediating international disputes, let alone local ones. But UNESCO faces optimistic prospects for the future as water conflicts become more public, and as increasing severity sobers obstinate interests.

World Trade Organization

The World Trade Organization can arbitrate water disputes presented by its member states when the disputes are commercial in nature. The WTO has certain groups, such as its Fisheries Center, that work

to monitor and rule on relevant cases, although it is by no means the authority on conflict over water resources. Because water is so central to agricultural trade, water disputes may be subtly implicated in WTO cases in the form of virtual water,
[20]

water used in the production of goods and services but not directly traded

between countries. Countries with greater access to water supplies may fare better from an economic standpoint than those facing crisis, which creates the potential for conflict. Outraged by agriculture subsidies that displace domestic produce, countries facing water shortages bring their case to the WTO. The WTO plays more of a role in agriculturally-based disputes that are relevant to conflict over specific sources of water. Still, it provides an important framework that shapes the way water will play into future economic disputes. One school of thought entertains the notion of war over water, the ultimate progression of an unresolved water disputescarce water resources combined with the pressure of exponentially increasing population may outstrip the ability of the WTO to maintain civility in trade issues
[21]

Notable conflicts
Water conflicts can occur on the intrastate and interstate levels. Interstate conflicts occur between two or more neighboring countries that share a transboundary water source, such as a river, sea, or groundwater basin. For example, the Middle East has only 1% of the world's freshwater shared among 5% of the world's population.
[22]

Intrastate conflicts take place between two of more parties in the same

country. An example would be the conflicts between farmers and industry (agricultural vs industrial use of water). According to UNESCO, the current interstate conflicts occur mainly in the Middle East (disputes stemming from the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers among Turkey, Syria, and Iraq; and the Jordan River conflict among Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestine territories), in Africa (Nile River-related conflicts among Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan),
[2]

as well as in Central Asia (the Aral Sea conflict among Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,

Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan). At a local level, a remarkable example is the 2000 Cochabamba protests, depicted in the 2010 Spanish film Even the Rain by Icar Bollan. Some analysts estimate that due to an increase in human consumption of water resources, water conflicts will become increasingly common in the near future.
[23][24]

During World War One, the Battle of Beersheba (1917) was fought with the expressed intention of securing water resources in Palestine.

16.9 THE CAUSES OF WAR What causes war? This question has been answered above, but the range and nature of all the causes and conditions may not be clear, because the discussion moved across phases and subphases of conflict and types of causes. War is generated by a field of sociocultural forces seated in the meaning, values, and norms of states. Specifically, war is an outcome of an imbalance among these forces in international space-time. And is the process through which a new field equilibrium is established. The causes and conditions of war, therefore, operate within this social field. They are interrelated; their operation is relative to the space-time. War is therefore not the product of one cause, or x number of causes operating independently. War is a social field phenomenon, and its causes and conditions must be understood as aspects of this field--as contextual, situational. With this understanding, an answer to "What causes war?" requires first stating the conditions that must be met for war to be possible. These are the necessary causes of war. For war to occur between two states they must have some contact and salience, some awareness of each other. They must also have some opposing interests, something to fight about, and capabilities to fight. Such is obvious, What is not so clear is the more abstract but operational statement of this: they must have specific sociocultural

distances (vectors).

What opposing interests are necessary for war depend on the actor and situation. But there is one characteristic, however, which can be defined. At least one of the potential combatants must be nonlibertarian. Shared domestic restraints, cross-pressures and bonds, ideology, preclude war between libertarian--liberal democratic--states. If at least one of the parties is nonlibertarian, there are still additional requirements for war to occur. There must be a significant change in the balance of powers supporting the status quo. Interests, capabilities, and will singly or in combination must have changed sufficiently that the status quo is now felt to be unjust, threatened, or ripe for readjustment. This change has created a tension, a cold or hostile climate between the parties; it had made it obvious to informed observers that if something is not done to prevent it, violence and possibly war will break out. Second, there must be a will-to-war. That is, each potential combatant must have a will to fight either in defense of or to change the status quo. Abnegation, surrender, concessions can avoid war, at least for the short run. Such, of course, may be at a cost in honor, benefits, potential gain, or freedom greater than a leadership is eventually willing or able to bear; and thus stimulating a subsequent will-to-war.

And third, each potential combatant must expect success as he defines it. That is, each must believe that if war does occur as a result of the increasingly unstable status quo, then he will be able to achieve his war aims (desirable slice of territory; defeat the other's border attack; force acceptance of a new sphere of interests; establish control over trade routes, humiliate the other, defend one's honor, and so on). These, then, are the rock bottom, generally necessary causes for war: contact and

salience, opposing interests and capabilities, nonlibertarian enemies, significant change in the balance of powers underlying the status quo, a will-to-war, and a belief in success if war occurs.
Wherever present between states on the globe, these causes demarcate the war potential zones, the possible global fronts of extreme violence. The zone including only libertarian states is a zone of peace. Outside of this zone are those that circumscribe the disequlibriums among powers supporting the local, regional, and global status quos. These are the hot spots, the zones of possible war. Yet, war may not occur. For a final necessary cause also must be present. This is the disruption of the status quo. Some, perhaps surprising, event will communicate injustice, threat, or opportunity in a way to crystallize the conflict situation and provoke the will-to-action for one or both parties. The change in the balance of powers has created tension, a recognition of the possibility of war over a status quo. The trigger event brings this to a head, provoking a crises in which war is the outcome. Disruption of the status quo is both necessary and sufficient for Conflict Behavior, but only necessary for violence and war. Such disruption will not occur unless the requirements for war are present (opposing interests, significant change in balance of powers, and so on). The decision to go to war takes preparation and months may go by in which tension grows or, through the subterfuge of one party or another, seems to abate before the attack. Such are the necessary and sufficient causes of war, what in the abstract must be present or happen for war to occur. However, it should be clear that all these requirements for war may be present, and still no war may break out. Moreover, the war that does occur can be a short, intense confrontation on a border, or a full-scale war between the parties involving bombing raids on each other's capital city and invasion, or a general war in which many states are involved. There are three groups of aggravating conditions which increase the likelihood of war, given the presence of the necessary conditions, or increase its intensity once it has occurred. One group is of those conditions which worsen Conflict Behavior generally, whether negative communications, sanctions, violence, or war. These include

the sociocultural dissimilarity between the parties, theircognitive imbalance and status difference and the coercive power of the parties. All these acerbate opposing interests and with regard to war, tend to destabilize the status quo, and increase the likelihood of its disruption. A second group of aggravating conditions uniquely influence violence and war. One of these is thepolarity of the system, which defines the generality of the status quo and increases the probability that a state's violence, wherever it occurs, will involve Big Power interests. A second is Big Power intervention itself, which may inject into local conflicts larger status quo interests and resources and provoke violence or its escalation. Another aggravating condition is the weakness of the Status quo Power. Given the presence of the necessary causes, if the Status quo Power seems to display an unwillingness or inability to defend an already unstable status quo, then this makes more likely its disruption and the escalation of violence and war, once they occur. Finally, there is honor and credibility. If these are at stake in a conflict situation, it becomes more explosive, making violence and war more likely, more intense once they occur, and more difficult to resolve. The third group of aggravators is unique to war. These make disruption and war more likely, given the necessary causes, and make the escalation of war more probable. One is power parity, or a sufficient equality of coercive power and force such that each side believes that it can successfully oppose the power of the other. The second aggravator is class conflict. Class in international relations defines the authoritative, status quo rights of the parties. As there is increasingly one division separating those who have from those who want; those with wealth, power and prestige from those who are poor, weak, and unrenowned; and those states who command and those who obey; then this division worsens conflict, makes war more likely, and tends to turn a war, once it occurs, into a general war. In total, the three groups of aggravating conditions push toward war. But, singly or collectively, they will not in general cause war by themselves. The necessary causes must be present; the status quo must be disrupted. However, these aggravating causes can turn potential into disposition and disposition into a war seeking an excuse to happen. In any conflict, however, there are always two sets of conditions present. Those promoting confrontation; those discouraging it. For war, also, there are a variety of inhibiting conditions that oppose its occurrence and escalation. These also comprise three groups, depending on whether they operate in all Conflict Behavior subphases, only violence and war, or only on war.

The first group comprises those aggravators that when reversed act also as inhibitors. Thus, sociocultural similarity, cognitive balance, status similarity, and state weakness restrains the tendency toward Conflict Behavior, violence and war. The second group contains a number of inhibitors which act on violence, only one of which is the reverse of an aggravator. This is the strength of the Status quo Power. If in spite of a change in the balance of powers, the supporter of the status quo appears willing and able to defend it, this tends to work against its disruption. Even then disruption and consequent violence or war may occur. TheAntiStatus quo Power may believe it can successfully change the status quo over the other's resistance. But, the threshold for this is raised. Another inhibitor in this group is cross-pressures. These involve diverse interests that may segment the particular opposing interests of the parties. Violence or war may be desirable for these interests, but other interests may therefore be compromised or lost. Some interests push toward war; some pun away from it. Related to this is internal freedom--a libertarian political system--as an inhibitor of violence and war. Libertarian states do commit violence and go to war; but reluctantly, usually against totalitarian or authoritarian threats or aggression, and often with considerable domestic opposition. A final inhibitor in this group is world opinion, the pressure that allies and neutrals can bring to bear to prevent or check violence and war. The final group is of those conditions uniquely inhibiting war. It has one member: power disparity.Power parity worsens a war-potential situation; power disparity restrains it. War still may occur, in spite of a gross inequality in military forces and resources. Other factors, such as honor, credibility, survival, or determination may make the difference, as they have in the Israeli-Arab Wars. Success may be pegged to the potential for Big Power intervention; or success may be measured not in terms of winning, but in actually having fought the other to a standstill or in unifying a nation. Or a state may calculate that the other side will use only a small part of its power, as small North Vietnam correctly did in fighting a war against a Superpower, the United States. These, then, are the causes and conditions of war. Table 16A.1 in Appendix 16A pulls them all together, by level and group. Figure 16.1 shows these causes operating by phase and subphase. And the basic picture of the conflict helix in Figure 29.1 of Vol. 2: The Conflict Helix portrays the process of conflict, and thus of war as well; In order to be as clear as possible, however, I have also constructed Figure 16.2. This brings together in one figure all the necessary and sufficient causes and the aggravating and inhibiting conditions of war, in their relationship to each other and to

the underlying process of conflict. Causes and conditions are shown in lower case; descriptive terms for this process are capitalized. The core of the structure of expectations--the status quo--is shown as a bar with regard to which a gap(incongruence) is created by a change in the balance of powers (necessary cause). This assumes mutual contact and salience, and opposing interests and capabilities (necessary causes). A trigger(cause) disrupts the status quo (necessary and sufficient cause) and war results, assuming a will-to-war, confidence in success, and that totalitarian or authoritarian states are involved (necessary causes). The war then determines a new balance of mutually recognized powers and a congruent status quo as shown in Figure 16.2. Also as shown, a number of aggravating and inhibiting conditions operate on the process. Such, then, is a well-confirmed perspective on war. The evidence is presented in Appendices 16B and 16C.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2070.html