Scrutinizing the Scorpion Problematique: Arguments in Favor of the Continued Relevance of International Law and a Multidisciplinary Approach to Resol

by FASIL AMDETSION
Abstract
The paucity of international agreements governing the use of the world’s 261 international watercourses justifies experts’ propensity for prognosticating the outbreak of war over water। Conflict over the Nile Waters is more than just a plausible scenario for the ten riparian states that are saddled with burgeoning populations, varying historical narratives, competing geopolitical interests, and most importantly, the lack of an all-encompassing legal agreement. At the heart of the Nile dispute are two colonial era agreements which are controversial by virtue of the purported expansiveness of their reach. Egypt maintains that the agreements (signed by the British ostensibly on behalf of their colonies) justify a lopsided allocation of the Nile’s bounties wherein Egypt and Sudan are entitled to exclusive use of the river’s waters, but use by upper riparian states is predicated upon explicit permission by Cairo. Most papers offering prescriptions for the current impasse focus solely on analysis rooted in a particular discipline. In this article, the author eschews such artificial categorization and urges a dramatic multidisciplinary shift. Specifically, the author advocates moving towards a more equitable allocation premised upon: (1) legal agreements that reject dogmatic adherence to outdated “Harmonian” or “prior appropriation” doctrines in favor of normatively appealing and emerging jurisprudence in the field of equitable allocation; (2) multilateral, profit-based hydraulics agreements that would bring about joint and increased exploitation of the Nile in upper riparian states; and (3) continued and increased international engagement in the face of pronounced geopolitical power asymmetries. More