Terrorism threatening transboundary watercourses

The menace of terrorism looms over the international community, posing a major threat to the multilateral world order. Over the years, in an attempt to create a robust infrastructure to deal with this multifaceted threat, the international community has signed various specialised multilateral and bilateral agreements to enhance cooperation on the suppression of terrorism. However, the targets of terrorist threats are continuously evolving, which adds to the severity and complexity of the problem. One such target is water.

Post 9/11, the world has seen a surge in the number of terrorist threats aimed at water resources and infrastructures. In light of water scarcity, this requires the immediate attention of the international community. The international character and complexity of the issue is further magnified by the presence of transboundary watercourses. This means that terrorist attacks on the water infrastructure in one country can have an impact on the quantity and quality of water in another country.

Global conflicts have shown that terrorists use water resources to threaten communities and weaken states. The attack on the Euphrates and Tigris river system, primarily shared between Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, serves as an example. When the Islamic State (IS) seized control of several important dams in both Iraq and Syria, the terrorist outfit used its control over water as a weapon in a number of ways. IS’s use of water indicated that weaponisation could be caused by too little or too much water. Terrorists can also impact the quality of water.

The legal issue is that as of now, there exists a gap in international law connecting terrorism and transboundary watercourses, with the result that water-related terrorism is not adequately addressed. The problem is multipronged. First, there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism in international law, which means the political and ideological connotations related to terrorism remain contested. Most of the terrorism related international agreements are specialised in nature focusing on issues such as hostage taking on aircraft, financing of terrorism, protection of nuclear material and safety of maritime navigation. Whereas some of these instruments make an attempt at defining terrorism, the lack of a clear definition of terrorism under international law remains a major issue. In the case of water-related terrorism, this impacts the classification of actions as terrorism.

Second, as of now, international water law does not contain any express provision dealing with the protection of a transboundary watercourse from terrorism. Moreover, there is no provision obligating riparian states to cooperate over combating water-related terrorism. With the increase in the amount of water-related terrorist incidents happening globally, international lawyers and academics can no longer shelf this issue or limit it to the confines of academic debates. The ideal situation would be the creation of a specialised treaty dealing with the protection of transboundary watercourses from terrorism.

The lack of consensus on a definition of terrorism is an indication of states’ hardlining on polarising issues. Similarly, despite overwhelming support when signed in 1997, the ratification process of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses has been slow. Hence, geopolitical limitations weigh against the signing of a specialised treaty.

A legal argument can be made that such a duty to cooperate should also extend to protecting the watercourse from the threat of terrorism and also to cooperate over the apprehension and investigation of crimes committed against a shared watercourse. Furthermore, the duty to cooperate includes the duty to notify.

Again, whereas this duty to notify has historically been triggered in cases of dam construction, a plausible argument can be made to notify riparian states, sharing watercourses, of an imminent terrorist threat, if one is uncovered in the course of ordinary due diligence. The use of existing international water law principles may not be the ideal solution to the issue at hand, but it offers the quickest and most easily accessible solution to a pressing international legal issue.