hydropolitics of the tigris - euphrates river basin with - ceris.be

The territorial sovereignty theory is also known as the Harmon Doctrine, 65 which maintains that riparian
states have exclusive (sovereign) rights over waters flowing through their territory. This justifies any type of
water use by the state, irregardless of the downstream impacts. Originating in the US, this law has been
rescinded in favour of more neighbour-friendly laws but Turkey has chosen to invoke it as part of their
cause.
The natural water flow theory refers to territorial integrity of watercourses, stating that a river is a natural
part of the territory of a riparian state and that the state is entitled to the natural flow of the river,
unhampered by upstream riparians. This theory is closely linked to the notion of historic rights or established
user rights. 66 Syria and Iraq invoke these principles, claiming Turkey must respect them also.
The concept of equitable apportionment is more recent and has its roots in the arena of international law
relating to international watercourses. The term “international watercourse” was adopted by the UN
International Law Commission and is part of the formulation of the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of
International Watercourses (the UN/ILC Law) that apply to waters which are situated in different states.
Although first presented in 1959 it was not presented for ratification until 1997. In the interim, the most
widely used law for use of International Rivers was drawn up in Helsinki in 1966. The Helsinki Law gave
rights to existing uses of water on shared water resources and is based largely on the principle of equitable
utilisation. It promoted the equitable distribution of uses and does not give any particular use a priority over
the other.
A relative ranking system has been applied to help quantify equitable use for the Tigris-Euphrates Basin
with the result that the calculated allocable share of water between Turkey, Syria and Iraq is almost equal. In
his evaluations McQuarrie suggests that this methodology is unrealistic because it ranks each particular use,
such as food security, as having equal weighting or importance for all countries. For example Syria would
place a higher priority over food security than Turkey, while Turkey would emphasise hydro-electric energy
(and subsequent economic development) over irrigation to provide the same security. The model also
requires a certain data reliability, which is not yet available in the region and does not include political or
security concerns for each country; aspects which frequently dominate economic and social agendas. Finally,
McQuarrie pragmatically points out that with such a model Turkey would ultimately lose from a sovereignty
point of view and that, for the moment, there are no sanctions for not accepting the UN/ILC Law. 67
26