Resolution of water dispute between India and Bangladesh: Does international law work

The findings of this study reveal that the 'reasonable and equitable utilization' of international watercourse is the governing principle of international water law. It has been recognized as an established principle of customary international law in all important codifications of this area. It recognizes the principle of limited sovereignty, shared natural resources, equitable utilization, no significant harm, reasonableness, optimum utilization, sustainable development, notification, data sharing and finally peaceful settlement. I argue in this study that in the light of international law India's unilateral construction of structures at the upstream of the international rivers and its attempt to interlink the common international rivers, having disastrous consequences for Bangladesh, are illegal. A number of factors, such as intrinsic weakness of the international law to enforce it on the strong states like India, Indian realist policy (power politics), economic and military powers to carry out this policy and its strategic partnership with the US (which gave it new endorsement to power politics) are responsible for its non-compliance to international law regarding the utilization of common water and environmental resources with Bangladesh. In other words, India's lack of respect for international law has derived from its hegemony.;The Third party settlement is a democratic process and works well among the democratic states. The third party mediation is chosen here as an effective method on the grounds that first, it is a compelling international law and secondly, South Asia experienced third party settlements on several occasions and the results were very effective and fruitful. The Indus water dispute between India and Pakistan was successfully resolved with an accord in 1960 by the active mediation of the World Bank. Again the Tashkent Agreement brokered by the then USSR, successfully concluded the Indo-Pakistan war in 1965 over the Kashmir issue. The settlement of the India -Pakistan land boundary disputes by the Rann of Kutch Arbitration of 1965 is another important example of a third party settlement in South Asia. Finally, I suggest that the United Nations, or the World Bank or global super power the US (acceptable to both India and Bangladesh) can be a suitable third party mediator.;I further argue that only a third party settlement is the best strategy to resolve the disputes, because during the last thirty-seven years (1972-2009) bilateralism proved self defeating for Bangladesh. India's uninterrupted violation of the bilateral treaty regarding the apportionment of the Ganges water and construction of the Tipaimukh hydraulic dam turns bilateralism into unilateralism. In the name of bilateralism India breaches the existing treaty unilaterally. As a consequence, bilateralism with India acts as a zero-sum game for Bangladesh. It fails to create a 'win- win' situation for both of the countries. In effect, bilateralism has become a principal obstacle for the settlement of the Indo-Bangladesh water and environmental disputes. In the context of the failure of bilateralism, a third party settlement may be considered as the best alternative strategy for Bangladesh to make the dispute settlement process a win-win situation. A third party settlement or a multilateral agreement is not only the most common method, but also it is seen by many as an ideal method for a just and effective settlement.