Collaborative versus adversarial approaches to addressing transboundary water disputes – what do implementation committees have to offer?

A key contrast between third-party dispute settlement procedures, such as adjudication and arbitration, and the types of implementation committees found within multilateral environmental agreements is that the former are adversarial and legal binding, whereas the latter are described as non-binding, non-adversarial, facilitative and collaborative. A comparison of the two options within a transboundary water context suggests that implementation committees have some advantages in handling the types of scientific and technical issues that arise in transboundary water disputes, and the collaborative nature of their work can be effective in reaching a common solution to the dispute. However, the legal and political context in which these disputes arise will ultimately dictate which option will be chosen.