Skip to Main Content

Considered together, this suggests that the EU, UNECE and SADC water agreements have core principles and associated institutions that are aligned with the UNWC, making it more likely that there is understanding of, and engagement with, the principles and requirements of the UNWC. The NIW analysis has therefore been re-computed without EU, UNECE and SADC States and the results are shown in Table 3. Here the evidence is even clearer than in Table 1: downstream States (as indicated by a positive NIW) tend to vote in favour of the UNWC with progression upstream through being Absent, Abstention and, finally, the most upstream States tending to vote against the UNWC.

Table 3.

Average NIW of States according to UNWC voting behaviour in 1997, for States with available data with the exclusion of EU, UNECE and SADC States.

UNWC Voting behaviourMeanStandard Deviation
Without EU, UNECE and SADC States In Favour (62, data for 62) 0.7 34.8 
Absent (46, data for 45) 0.4 43.2 
Abstention (21, data for 19) −5.7 54.7 
Against (3) −31.5 8.5 
UNWC Voting behaviourMeanStandard Deviation
Without EU, UNECE and SADC States In Favour (62, data for 62) 0.7 34.8 
Absent (46, data for 45) 0.4 43.2 
Abstention (21, data for 19) −5.7 54.7 
Against (3) −31.5 8.5 

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal