During the Cold War era, many transboundary river basins experienced a phase of desecuritization—meaning water issues were no longer considered urgent security threats.Water was increasingly framed as a domain of cooperation rather than conflict.Concepts such as Integrated Water Resources Management, benefit sharing, and the water-energy-food nexus reshaped diplomatic discourse.
More than 300 transboundary river basins cross political borders, making water one of the most strategic resources of the 21st century. Although interest in joining the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention and the 1992 Water Convention is growing, actual compliance and implementation of water law principles remain limited and face increasing challenges in specific basins. Additionally, the adoption of international water treaties and the creation of basin organizations have slowed. Since 2010, only 51 treaties and five basin organizations have been established, well below the levels of the 1990s and 2000s, when cooperation peaked. In the past decade, this cooperative approach has shifted. Resecuritization, or treating water as a security issue again, is gaining momentum. Water is now viewed primarily through the lens of national security, sovereignty, and strategic control, affecting the institutional, technological, and geopolitical spheres.
This evolving mindset is further reinforced by the return of power struggles between countries, strengthening nationalism. Growing competition between the US and China, tensions between the EU and Russia, and increased rivalry in the Indo-Pacific and Eastern Europe show that countries are increasingly focused on their own interests. Countries are quickly becoming more independent, spending more on defense, bringing key industries back home, and seeking to control key resources. Now, water, energy, food, and technology are often seen as urgent national security issues.
In order to fully understand this evolution, it is important to consider broader global trends. From 1990 to 2010, the global system favored free trade and multilateral institutions such as the WTO. Since then, attention has shifted to industrial policy, technology blocs, and digital sovereignty. Although some aspects of globalism remain, weaker enforcement of global rules and the rise of stronger regional blocs indicate a move toward fragmented globalization. While controlled globalization persists in economics and technology, nationalism is rising in security and geopolitics. Geopolitics has shifted from cooperation to competition. As a result, the global order is moving toward a multipolar world shaped by nationalism, even as economic interdependence continues.
Amid these conditions, the erosion of global liberal rules has reached a critical point, triggering rapid strategic autonomy, fierce technology competition, and an urgent surge in resource nationalism. In this precarious context, transboundary water resources have moved to the forefront of resecuritization. Now, securitization frames issues such as water infrastructure as existential threats, demanding swift, extraordinary measures. This resecuritization of water sharply accelerates when power imbalances are militarized, cooperative institutions deteriorate, and climate volatility increases threat perception. As a result, these escalating risks demand bold, immediate innovation in transboundary water cooperation.
A positive-sum approach, in which all parties benefit, is essential to modern hydropolitics and hydrodiplomacy. This replaces the outdated zero-sum mindset, where one side’s gain is another’s loss. Zero-sum thinking only increases the risks of resecuritization.
At the intersection of these evolving challenges and technological advances lies hydro-technopolitics. Technological advances such as remote sensing, real-time monitoring, AI forecasting, and satellite data are rapidly transforming water governance. These changes require urgent adaptation to more data-driven and strategic approaches. The rise of hydro-technopolitics, where technology and water politics intersect, means that data access and control now represent power, raising the stakes for all involved. Looking ahead, tools like digital basin twins, satellite-based compliance monitoring, and algorithmic resource allocation will become essential. While technology can reduce information gaps, contested control over data may dangerously escalate competition.
Regions experiencing resecuritization include the Nile Basin (GERD tensions), the Tigris–Euphrates Basin, the Indus Basin, the Amu Darya Basin (due to the Qosh Tepa Canal), and Sub-Saharan Africa’s river basins under climate stress. When states resecuritize transboundary waters, three dynamics emerge: water infrastructure becomes a primary target for protection, joint commissions face greater political constraints, and states prioritize unilateral hydraulic projects. As a result, hydropower disputes increasingly disrupt electricity grids and impede regional trade.
Despite these trends, resecuritization is not inevitable, as several countermeasures exist. ‘Climate-informed treaty revision’ means updating treaties to address the impacts of climate change. ‘Data transparency platforms’ are shared systems for open access to water data. ‘Benefit-sharing redesign’ restructures agreements so riparian states share regional benefits from cooperation, rather than just dividing water volumes. ‘Regionalization’ involves coordinating water management across regions, while ‘institutionalization’ means formally establishing cooperation through organizations or agreements. These steps must be prioritized given the complex interactions among riparian states and hydropolitics.
We are witnessing a rapid shift from viewing water as a development tool to treating it as a strategic asset. This does not mean water wars are inevitable, but it does indicate an immediate need for innovative and adaptive water diplomacy. In addition, a fundamental reform of existing transboundary water governance mechanisms and institutions is urgently needed. Reviving and strengthening water cooperation will require political will and the courage to prioritize dialogue over dominance and long-term stability over short-term gain.
Source: Global Research
