Issue linkage is often recommended as a strategy for enhancing cooperation. Lately it has been suggested that this strategy could also be applied to the management of transboundary natural resources. The authors examine the viability of this suggestion. They argue that in the case of natural resources such a linkage may have both short-term and long-term implications. Essentially, by constraining the options available to the various parties, such linkages limit ability to adapt management regimes to changes in the environment; thereby, they limit the ability to address environmental stresses and crises. These negative implications may be redressed by mechanisms that will allow the parties to adapt the linkage to new conditions and by tactics that reduce the political cost of a linkage strategy. The authors focus on the negotiation process concerning US–Mexico transboundary water, which was based on a long-term spatial linkage combining the waters of the Colorado River and those of the Rio Grande. This spatial linkage was advanced by a short-term issue linkage, in which the Mexican government supported the establishment of the United Nations in return for the US federal government's willingness to accept the spatial linkage. These linkages were found to have both short-term and long-term adverse implications. The short-term implications were delays in negotiations, inconsistency in the legal doctrines held by the different parties during the negotiation, and a threat to sovereignty. The main long-term implication identified is the current inability of Mexico to adapt the linkage in response to the ten-year drought along the Rio Grande, as manifest in the inability of Mexico to meet its water obligations to the USA along the Rio Grande. This has resulted in a controversy between Mexico and the USA, and between the Mexican federal government and the Mexican border states. It is suggested that flexibility provisions be included when linkages involving natural resources are advanced, so that the necessary adaptations in regimes management will be allowed for without necessitating a renegotiation of the treaty.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbaA O, 1945, “Statement of Adolfo Orive Alba, Mexican National Irrigation Commission, at the Round Table Discussions of the Water Treaty in the Mexican Senate Offices” (translated by the US Section of the IBWC)
2.
AltJEichengreenB, 1989, “Parallel and overlapping games: Theory and an application to the European gas trade”Economics and Politics119–154
3.
Anonymous, 1927, “Partial proceedings of conference of governors, commissioners and advisors of the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming of the Colorado River”, held in Denver, Colorado, 22 August to 1 September, 1927 Daily Siver Belt (Miami, Arizona)
4.
Anonymous, 1945a, “Informe del ejecutivo de irrigación al senado, sobre el tratado de aguas” [Report of the Senate Irrigation Committee for Water Management]Excelsior 1 August, page 12
5.
Anonymous, 1945b, “Sacrifica vitales intereses para el pueblo mexicano el pacto de aguas” [Sacrificing vital interests for the Mexican cities of the water agreement]Excelsior 11 September
6.
Anonymous, 1945c, “Fue derrotado ayer el grupo que objeta el tratado de aguas” [Yesterday the opposition group to the water agreement was defeated]Excelsior 11 August, page 15
7.
Anonymous, 1945d, “Argumentos para probar que es constitucional el pacto de aguas” [Arguments to prove why the water treaty is constitutional]Excelsior 7 August, page 10
8.
Anonymous, 1945e, “Más beneficia que daña a México el tratado de aguas” [The water treaty is beneficial to Mexico]Excelsior 8 August, page 8
9.
Anonymous, 1945f, “El tratado de aguas es patriótico” [The water treaty is patriotic]Excelsior 3 August
10.
Anonymous, 2001, “Border: Joint effort to solve a natural resource crisis may help bring US Mexico closer”Los Angeles Times 29 May
11.
BeachH LHammerJHewittJ JKaufmanEKurkiAOppenheimerJ AWolfA T, 2000Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Resolution, Theory Practice and Annotated References (United Nations University Press, Tokyo)
12.
BernheimDWhinstonM, 1990, “Multimarket contact and collusive behavior”Rand Journal of Economics211–26
13.
BeshurA, 2003, “Mexican government issued compensation checks to irrigation managers”The Brownsville Herald 18 April
14.
Binational Declaration, 2001, “The Rio Conchos and the Lower Rio Bravo/Rio Grande”, Texas Center for Policy Studies, 44 East Avenue, Suite 306, Austin, TX 78701
BustamanteJ, 1999La Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas entre México y los Estados Unidos [The international Boundary Water Committee between Mexico and the US] (Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Ciudad Juárez)
17.
Colorado River Basin Committee of Fourteen, 1941Proceedings 26–27 May
18.
Colorado River Basin Committee of Fourteen, 1942Proceedings 17–20 June
19.
Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas Entre México y Estados Unidos (undated) El tratado de aguas internacionales [The International Water Treaty]
20.
Congressional Debate, 1945, Proceedings and debate of the 79th Congress, 1st session, Volume 91, Part 3, March 27 1945–May 4 1945, pp 2797–4216
21.
Congressional Record, 1927, Proceedings and debates, second session of the Sixty-Ninth Congress, volume LXVIII—Part 5, page 5043
22.
Dutch Ministry of Housing, 1999Towards Sustainable River Basin Management. Recommendations and Guidelines on Best Management PracticesCenter for Research on River Basin Administration, Delft University of Technology, Delft
23.
EatonDHurlbutD, 1992Challenges in the Binational Management of Water Resources in the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo. US–Mexico Policy Studies Program, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
24.
EliasT O, 1974The Modern Law of Treaties (Oceania Publications, Dobbs Ferry, NY)
25.
EnriquezC E, 1975El Tratado Entre Mexico y los Estados Unidos de América Sobre Rios Internacionales, Volume 2 [The US–Mexico Treaty on International Rivers]Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Mexico
26.
FischhendlerI, 2004, “Legal and institutional adaptation to climate uncertainty: A study of international rivers”Water Policy61–24
27.
FischhendlerIFeitelsonE, 2003, “Spatial adjustment as a mechanism for resolving river basin conflicts: US–Mexico case”Political Geography25547–573
28.
FreyF W, 1993, “The political context of conflict and cooperation over international river basins”Water International1854–68
29.
GomezM R, 1945, “Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mexican Secretary of Agriculture and Development”City of Mexico Press 21 April (translated by the US Section of the IBWC)
30.
GonzálezR L, 2001, “Grave, la escasez de agua” [Water scarcity: A serious problem]El Diario 12 March
31.
GregorA, 2002, “Farmers in the valley told to be patient”Express-News Rio Grande Bureau 18 July
32.
HawkinsW, 1931, “Water rights in the United States Mexico streams”Temple Law QuarterlyV January
33.
Hearing of the Foreign Affairs Committee, 1945, in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee of Foreign RelationsHearings, Water Treaty with Mexico, 79th Congress, 1st Session, 1945
34.
House of Representatives, 1928, 70th Congress, 1st session, Report 918, Part 3, 1928
35.
HughesC E, 1925, Letter from the Department of State to the American Embassy in Mexico City concerning equitable use of the waters of the Lower Colorado river and the Rio Grande, Washington, 17 January 1925, inSenate, 70th Congress, 1st Session, Document No. 183
36.
HundleyNJr, 1966Dividing the Waters (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
37.
IBWC, 2002, “Report of the United States Section International Boundary and Water Commission, Deliveries of waters allotted to the United States under Article 4 of the United States-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944”, International Boundary and Water Commission, 4171 N Mesa, El Paso, TX 79902
38.
IngramHWhiteD, 1993, “International Boundary and Water Commission: An institutional mismatch for resolving transboundary water problems”Natural Resources Journal33153–175
KellyM, 2001bWater Management in the Binational Texas/Mexico Rio Grande/Rio Bravo BasinTexas Center for Policy Studies, 44 East Avenue, Suite 306, Austin, TX 78701
41.
KillgoreM WEatonD J, 1995NAFTA Handbook for Water Resource Managers and Engineers. US–Mexico Policy Studies Program and American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA
42.
KleriganECázaresM, 2001, “Piden a la CNA compensar agua” [Asking the CNA for water compensation]El Norte 16 April
43.
LeMarquandD, 1977International Rivers, the Politics of Cooperation. Wastewater Research Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
44.
McGinnisM, 1986, “Issue linkage and the evolution of international cooperation”The Journal of Conflict Resolution30141–170
45.
MartinL, 1993, “Domestic and international institutions in the EMU Process”Economics and Politics5125–144
46.
MartinL, 1994, “Heterogeneity, linkage and common problems”Journal of Theoretical Politics6473–493
47.
MayerF W, 1992, “Managing domestic differences in international negotiations: The strategic use of internal side payments”International Organizations46793–819
48.
MeijerinkS, 1999Conflict and Cooperation on the Scheldt River Basin (Kluwer, Dordrecth)
49.
MeyersC, 1967, “The Colorado Basin”, in The Law of International Drainage Basins Eds GarrestsonA MHaytonR DOlmsteadC J, (Oceana Publications, New York) pp 486–609
50.
MleriganE, 2001, “Abren Consejo del Río Bravo a Gobiernos” [Possible consensus between the Rio Bravo and the government]El Norte 14 May
51.
MummeS, 1982The United States–Mexico Groundwater Dispute: Domestic Influence on Foreign PolicyPhD Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
52.
MummeS, 1993, “Innovations and reform in transboundary resource management: A critical look at the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico”Natural Resources Journal3393–122
53.
NorthcuttE, 1946, “Light on the Mexican water treaty from the ratification proceedings in Mexico. A report to the Colorado River Water Users' Association” (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
54.
OstromE, 1990Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
55.
PadillaI, 1945, “Statement released by the Mexican government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Agriculture relative to the water Treaty April 1945”, translated by the US Section of the IBWC
56.
PiersonE, 2002, “Water expert says Mexico holding out for conservation money”The Brownsville Herald 27 June
57.
PriscoliJ D, 1990, “Does water integrate or separate us?”Water International15236–239
58.
PutnamR D, 1988, “Diplomacy and domestic policies: The logic of two-level game”International Organization42427–460
59.
RAS, 1930, “Report of the American Section of the International Water Commission United States and Mexico (RAS)”, Washington, 21 April
60.
Rio Grande Project of the Bureau of Reclamation, 1938, Meeting between representatives of Lower Rio Grande Water User and Irrigation Districts, 27 May, El Paso
61.
RobinsonJ, 2002, “Alternative approaches to estimate the impact of irrigation water shortages on Rio Grande Valley agriculture”, unpublished report of the Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
62.
RogerM, 1964History of United States–Mexican Negotiations Relative to the Colorado RiverPhD thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
63.
SaenzA, 1925, Letter from Aaron Saenz, the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs, to Arthur Schoenfeld, the American Chargé d'Affaires, Mexico, 26 January 1925, inSenate, 70th Congress, 1st Session, Document No. 163
64.
SattleyS, 2001a, “Navigating water politics”The Brownsville Herald 30 October
SebeniusJ, 1983, “Negotiation arithmetic: Adding and subtracting issues and parties”International Organization37281–316
67.
SheffieldJ, 1926, Letter from James Sheffield to Aaron Saenz, the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs, concerning equitable use of the waters of the Lower Colorado River and the Rio Grande, 13 August 1926, inSenate, 70th Congress, 1st Session, Document No. 183
68.
Six States Committee, 1944, “Statement supporting ratification of the proposed treaty between the United States and Mexico”, 29 August
69.
SusskindL E, 1994Environmental Diplomacy, Negotiating More Effective Global Agreements (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
70.
SwingP, 1926, Letters from Phil Swing to John Bacon, 15 May, 17 June, and 13 December, 1926Swing Papers. University of California, Los Angeles, CA
71.
TarangoR R, 2001, “Tenemos que ‘cerrarle'a la deuda.-Estado” [We have to close the public debt]El Norte 13 June, page 4A
72.
TateD, 2002, “Bringing technology to the table: Computer modeling, dispute resolution, and the Rio Grande”, Professional Report, Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas Austin, TX
73.
TCEQ, 2002, “Legal Status of the 1944 Utilization of Waters Treaty Between the United States of America and Mexico”, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, PO Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711–3087
74.
TimmC, 1941The International Boundary Commission: United States and Mexico (University of Texas Press, Austin, TX)
75.
TollisonR DWillettT D, 1979, “An economic theory of mutually advantageous issue linkages in international negotiations”International Organization33425–449
76.
TuckerW P, 1957The Mexican Government Today (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
77.
WeinthalE, 2001, “Sins of omission: Constructing negotiating sets in the Aral Sea basin”Journal of Environment and Development1050–80
78.
WellesS, 1940, Letter from the Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles to the Mexican Ambassador Castillo Najera, Washington, 27 December 1939, inForeign Relations51030
79.
WolfA, 1997, “International water conflict resolution lesson learned from cooperative analysis”International Journal of Water Resources Development13333–365
80.
YoungOLevyM, 1999, “The effectiveness of international environmental regimes”, in The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes Ed. YoungO R, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 1–32
81.
ZilbermanD, 2002, “Individual and institutional responses to the drought: The case of California agriculture”Water Resources Issue 121, 17–21
