Document Type : Research Article
Author
PhD Candidate of British Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Highlights
Extended Abstract
Introduction
The discussion of the water rights of the Hirmand River is considered one of the longest-standing and most complex transboundary water resource disputes in Southwest Asia. Its consequences extend beyond a bilateral legal dispute, encompassing extensive dimensions of human security, environmental sustainability, and public governance. The Hirmand River, as the primary source of water for the Sistan region, plays a crucial role in the livelihoods, settlement patterns, and social stability of this area. Any disruption in its flow is directly linked to increased water insecurity, the degradation of the Hamoun wetlands, and the intensification of forced migration. In this context, the 1973 Treaty of Hirmand, as the only binding legal document between Iran and Afghanistan, has been an attempt to institutionalize the joint management of this resource. However, political developments in Afghanistan, especially following the Taliban's takeover in 2021, have posed serious challenges to the practical implementation of this treaty. Therefore, the primary objective of the present research is to evaluate the effectiveness of Iran's policies regarding the Hirmand water rights dispute and to examine how these policies align with the principles of public governance in a transboundary context.
Methodology
This research begins with the hypothesis that the effectiveness of Iran's policies in the Hirmand dispute is more influenced by institutional weaknesses in hydro diplomacy and the lack of coordination between foreign policy and domestic public governance than by the legal capacities of the 1973 treaty. Based on this hypothesis, Iran's hydro diplomacy in various periods, especially since 2021, has primarily been reactive and crisis-oriented, failing to establish sustainable and binding institutional arrangements for managing the shared resource. This study aims to analyze this hypothesis in light of documentary evidence and recent geopolitical developments.
Theoretical framework
Theoretical framework of this research based on Elinor Ostrom's theory of "governance of common resources," which emphasizes the role of multilevel institutions, clear rules, mutual trust, and dispute resolution mechanisms in the sustainable management of common resources. This theory enables the Hirmand dispute to be analyzed not merely as a legal or political conflict, but as a transboundary public issue, the resolution of which necessitates a connection between hydro diplomacy, the institutional capacity of states, and stakeholder participation. In this context, hydro diplomacy is regarded as one of the key tools for governing common resources, which can partially compensate for institutional gaps; however, its effectiveness will be limited in the absence of internal coordination and enforcement mechanisms.
From a methodological perspective, this research employs qualitative methods and content analysis of documents. The research data were collected through a systematic study of the 1973 Treaty of Hirmand, official documents and positions of the Iranian government, reports from international organizations, scientific articles in Persian and English, and analyses from reputable think tanks. The selected texts were chosen based on criteria such as scientific credibility, direct relevance to the topic, and coverage of developments following the Taliban's takeover. In the analysis phase, key concepts and categories related to hydro diplomacy, policy effectiveness, water security, and public governance were identified and coded, and the relationships among them were interpreted and understood. This approach enables the research findings to be presented coherently, connecting them to the research question and hypothesis, thereby providing a basis for analyzing the policy implications.
Research Findings
The findings from the content analysis suggest that Iran's policies in the Hirmand water rights dispute, despite having the legal backing of the 1973 treaty, have been limited in their practical effectiveness. An examination of the implementation of this treaty over various periods shows that Iran's water rights have always been contingent on the political and security conditions in Afghanistan, and the mechanisms envisioned for monitoring, dispute resolution, and enforcement have either not been fully activated or lacked sufficient enforcement guarantees. Before 2021, the instability of Afghan governments, weak institutional capacities, and the impact of recurrent droughts led to an unstable water flow into Sistan, often falling short of the amounts stipulated in the treaty. This situation has worsened following the Taliban's takeover, highlighting the fragility of existing legal arrangements in the face of political changes.
The analysis of developments since 2021 indicates that the Taliban's actions in managing the Hirmand water resources, including strict control of water flow and prioritizing internal considerations, have effectively sidelined the implementation of the treaty. Iran's responses, which include diplomatic warnings, technical negotiations, and efforts to prevent escalation of border tensions, have managed to avert a widespread security crisis in the short term. However, they have not led to sustainable fulfillment of water rights or a meaningful change in the Taliban's behavior. These findings suggest that Iran's hydro diplomacy at this juncture has primarily played a crisis management role and lacks the necessary tools to exert adequate pressure or create sustainable incentives for cooperation.
In terms of public governance, the consequences of reduced water rights are directly reflected in the water security of Sistan. The decrease in water levels, degradation of the Hamoun wetlands, decline in agricultural production, and intensification of forced migrations all indicate that inefficiencies at the level of transboundary diplomacy quickly translate into social and environmental crises at the national level. The findings emphasize that the lack of coordination between foreign policy and domestic water management policies has diminished Iran's capacity to address these consequences and weakened the region's resilience.
At the geopolitical level, the conflict between the Taliban and Pakistan, along with the disruptions in transit routes, has emerged as a new variable, providing potential opportunities for redefining Iran's policy leverage. Document analysis shows that linking hydro diplomacy with transit diplomacy and regional economic cooperation could serve as a complementary tool to enhance the effectiveness of policies. However, realizing this potential requires an integrated, multilevel, and coordinated approach among various governance institutions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the research findings implicitly support the research hypothesis that the effectiveness of Iran's policies in the Hirmand dispute has been below expectations due to institutional weaknesses, limitations of traditional diplomacy, and a lack of effective linkage between domestic and foreign governance. This study concludes that moving beyond the current situation requires a transition from reactive diplomacy to the active governance of common resources, sustainable institutional building, and the strategic use of geopolitical leverage, which can facilitate the sustainable management of transboundary water disputes and mitigate their security and social consequences.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)