""The book by Hussain and Dominguez provides a thorough, comprehensive, and insightful assessment of the extent to which the three North American countries engage in trilateral activities and/or continue to rely on bilateral or unilateral interaction methods. Evidence on how NAFTA's actual provisions hold up in practice is based on a number of case studies drawn from trade, environment and institutional/administrative arrangements. The book offers valuable lessons for regional integration and multilateral undertakings elsewhere in the world. This wide-ranging and penetrating analysis of inter-state relations within NAFTA deserves a wide readership among practitioners and scholars alike." - Emil J. Kirchner, Jean Monnet Chair, University of Essex, UK "This book is a timely assessment of the achievements of NAFTA after 20 years. The theoretical approach is enlightening and the analysis constitutes a realistic realty-check with focus on NAFTA's limitations and various turns to bilateralism. A must read for scholars of regional integration and citizens interested in changes in the global political economy." - Finn Laursen, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Was the NAFTA experiment a means to other goals for Canada, Mexico, and the United States, or an end in itself? This twenty-year study of trade and investment, dispute settlement and intellectual property rights, and the environment and labor finds all three North American countries are pursuing alternate initiatives independently, many of their thrusts streamlining with globalizing forces, and just as many strengthening Westphalian statism. Those findings caution against overly optimistic and deepening integrative arguments, invite exogenous dynamics like security considerations to mix and mingle with endogenous (or NAFTA-based) counterparts, and stop safely short of die-hard integrative opponents while opening pathways for both theoretical and empirical reassessments"--
Right to water may sound novel and somewhat dramatic, yet it has been central to the quest of human civilization for thousands of years. One of the earliest references to water as 'common property' can be found in the Jewish laws as early as 3000 BCE.Similar views are also found in Islam. In fact, the Arabic word for Islamic law - shari'ah - originally meant "the place from which one descends to water."Since water is a gift from the divine to all living beings, sharing water is regarded as holy duty. This is found across religions, regions, societies, and communities, from New Zealand to Nigeria, from Bangladesh to Brazil. But then, what transformed the divine sanction? What led to the negation of the 'commons,' with sharing of the riverine water across territorial boundaries suffering the most?The answer probably lies as much as in the politics of safeguarding one's personal or national interests as it is in the limitations imposed by our disciplinary understanding of things.In this context, a thorough reexamination, even reconceptualization,of some of the core issuesis required. Firstly, the concept of water needs to be understood not as H2O, as it is done in physical sciences,but as H2OP4. That is, the meaning of water in social sciences must include not only 'twice hydrogen plus oxygen' but also four P's - pollution, power, politics and profit. This is not to discount the 'science' in the conceptualization of water but rather to add elements central to social sciences. Secondly, the concept of river needs to be redefined and understood not as a carrier of water, as assumedin most of theWestern languages, but as 'nadi,' a flow consisting of prana (life), shakti (power), and atman (soul), as etymologically definedin most of the South Asian languages. This comes closer to what critical hydrologists would say, WEBS, that is, a 'river' consists of water, energy, biodiversity and sediment. In this light, any fragmentation of transboundary river waterin the name of 'sharing'becomes an unworkable option, unless of course a mechanism is found to 'share'the water of the river along with its energy, biodiversity and sediment, and that again, without distorting and harming the life of the river! Thirdly, the subject of 'water commons'needs to be approached from the standpoint of 'rights' of both human andriver. This is to flag the notion that nature, including rivers, has 'rights'just like humans, although their manifestations may be different. In fact, empowered humans, particularly those in control of the state, have more 'responsibility' than 'rights' in dissuading themselves and others from creating conditions of human wrongs, not only against fellow human beings but also against nature. Finally, if the 'rights' ofhumans are to be ensuredthen there is an urgent need to reconceptualize and mainstream the human as a multiverse being. This is because humans are not only political beings but also economic, cultural, ecological, technological, and psychological beings. In this light, if conflicts are to be contained then humans need to be empowered in all possible areasof life – politics, economics, ecology, culture, technology, and psychology. This would certainly require empowering each and every person, all at the same time receptive to nature in general and rivers in particular. The book is designed to initiate a discourse on the civilizational quest for water commons, indeed, with the expectation that a discussion on rights and rivers would lead to a creative flow of ideas and practices.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
This volume identifies existing statist approaches and political economies of river management in South Asia. These rivers are heavily suffering from millions of people who in contrast consider them as holy and worship them. Edited by Professor Imtiaz Ahmed, the contributors of this book from India, Nepal and Pakistan are leading readers on a journey through the transboundary rivers of South Asia where rivers are vital for the life and living. The book explains why the region needs a framework for cooperation on the wellbeing of these rivers. River management is the key to sustaining healthy river systems. The authors stress that right of the rivers must be codified and guaranteed by the state and the people in South Asia. However, the statist approach to the transboundary rivers in South Asia actually conceives them as national rivers. This volume contributes to the current campaign of overcoming the water dystopias in South Asia
