حکمرانی پایدار منابع آب مشترک مرزی با بهره‌گیری از نظریه انتخاب اجتماعی (مطالعه موردی حوضه رودخانه هریرود)
محورهای موضوعی :
مدیریت منابع آب
حمیدرضا جعفری
1
,
بهرام ملک محمدی
2
,
تورج نصر آبادی
3
,
عبدالسلام امینی
4
1 - استاد دانشکده محیط زیست پردیس دانشکده‌های فنی، دانشگاه تهران.
2 - دانشیار دانشکده محیط زیست، پردیس دانشکده های فنی، دانشگاه تهران.
3 - دانشیار دانشکده محیط زیست، پردیس دانشکده های فنی، دانشگاه تهران.
4 - دانشجوی دکتری برنامه‌ریزی محیط‌زیست، دانشکده محیط‌زیست، پردیس دانشکده‌های فنی ، دانشگاه تهران. *(مسوول مکاتبات)
تاریخ دریافت : 1398/09/03
تاریخ پذیرش : 1399/04/24
تاریخ انتشار : 1400/07/01
کلید واژه:
هریرود,
تئوری بازی,
قواعد انتخاب اجتماعی,
منابع آب,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه و هدف: مناقشات بر سر آب‌های فرامرزی بین کشورهای همسایه یک حوضه آبخیز، یکی از پدیده‌های رایج در عرصه بین‌المللی است. حل و فصل این مناقشات و توافق بر سر آب‌های فرامرزی همواره با چالش‌های متعددی روبرو بوده است که دستیابی به یک راه حل مورد اجماع طرف ها را دشوار می‌سازد. از جمله مناقشات آب‌های فرامرزی که در سال‌های اخیر، رو به شدت و وخامت گذارده، مناقشه افغانستان، ایران و ترکمنستان، بر سر استفاده از منابع آبی هریرود است. درین تحقیق سعی شده است تا بهترین راهکار جهت گذار از مرحله تنش و چالش به سمت تعامل و ایجاد یک بازی برد برد به نفع تمام طرف های درگیر در بازی ارائه گردد.روش بررسی: در این مقاله با فرض تمایل طرف‌های مناقشه به انجام مذاکره به منظور دستیابی به یک راه‌حل توافقی و اجماعی برای تقسیم حقابه هریرود، گزینه‌های احتمالی هریک از طرف ها با تکیه بر اصول و نظریات رایج بین‌المللی در مورد نحوه تقسیم آب‌های مرزی مشترک و نیز قواعد و کنوانسیون‌های رایج حقوقی شناسایی شد. پس از تعریف پنج گزینه برای مذاکرات هریرود بین ایران، افغانستان و ترکمنستان، به منظور شناسایی بهینه اجتماعی، از شش قاعده رایج کندورسه[1]، بوردا[2]، اکثریت نسبی[3]، میانه آرا[4]، مصالحه اکثریت[5] و کندورسه کاربردی[6] استفاده شد. در نهایت با استفاده از قواعد انتخاب اجتماعی، محتمل‌ترین نتیجه حاصل از مذاکره بر سر گزینه‌های یاد شده تعیین شد.یافته ها و نتیجه گیری: نتایج این تحقیق که در سال 1398 خورشیدی انجام شده است؛ نشان داد که گزینه ایجاد بازار آب، بر اساس تمامی قواعد انتخاب اجتماعی مورد استفاده به استثنای قاعده اکثریت نسبی، به عنوان بهینه انتخاب شده است؛ بنابراین می‌توان گفت که گزینه یاد شده ، محتمل‌ترین گزینه‌ای است که بر اساس قواعد انتخاب اجتماعی، امکان توافق بر سر آن بین سه کشور حوضه هریرود وجود دارد.4- Condorcet Choice5- Borda scoring6- Plurality rule7- Median voting rule8- Majoritarian compromise[6]- Condorcet’s Practical Method
چکیده انگلیسی:
Background and Objectives: Conflicts over transboundary waters between neighboring countries is one of the most common challenges in the regional and international scale. Solving of these conflicts and getting agreements over transboundary waters has always faced many challenges that make it difficult to reach a consensus solution. Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan Conflicts over Harirud river waters is among the transboundary river waters conflicts that have escalated in recent years. Material and Methodology: Assuming that the parties are willing to hold negotiation in order to reach an agreement over Harirud river waters, in this paper the probable options of each party were identified with respect to the prevailing international principles and theories on how to divide common border waters. After defining five options for negotiation, in order to identify social optimal situation, six common social choice rules including Condorcet Choice, Borda Scoring, Plurality Rule, Median Voting Rule, Majoritarian Compromise and Condorcet’s Practical Method were used. Finally, by using the aforementioned social choice rules, the most probable result was determined.Findings and Conclusions: The results showed that water trading market option, based on all rules of social choice, exception of plurality rule, was chosen as optimal situation. Therefore, based on the social choice rules, it can be said that the water trading market option is the most likely solution which there is a possibility of an agreement between the three countries over Harirud river waters conflicts.
منابع و مأخذ:
Ajlali, F. (2010). Principle of Irrigation, Payamnor University Press. (In Persian)
Gleick, P. (1996). Basic water requirements for human activities: Meeting basic needs. Water International, 21 (2), 83-92.
Azizi, A., Ghorbani, A., Malekmohammadi, B., & Jafari, H. R. (2017). Government management and overexploitation of groundwater resources: absence of local community initiatives in Ardabil plain-Iran. Journal of environmental planning and management, 60(10), 1785-1808.
Bassett, G. W., & Persky, J. (1999). Robust voting. Public Choice, 99(3-4), 299-310.
Danesh yazdi, M., Abrishamchi, A., Tajrishy, M. (2014). Conflict Resolution of Water Resources Allocations Using the Game Theoretic Approach: The Case of Orumieh River Basin. Journal of Water and Wastewater, 25(2), 48-57. (In Persian)
Elimam, L., Rheinheimer, D., Connell, C., & Madani, K. (2008). An ancient struggle: a game theory approach to resolving the Nile conflict. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008: Ahupua'A (pp. 1-10).
Favre, R., & Kamal, G. M. (2004). Watershed atlas of Afghanistan. Kabul: Ministry of Irrigation, Water Resources and Environment.
Ghandhary, A., Alavi Moghadam, S. M. R., Omranian Khorasani, H. (2016). Predicting the Necessity of Cooperation between the Harirud Basin Countries Based on Game Theory: The Shapely Value Approach. Journal of Water and Sustainable Development, 3(1), 115-121. (In Persian)
Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., Kinsara, R. (2014). Strategic Investigations of Water Conflicts in the Middle East. Group Decis Negot, 23:355–376.
Islamic Parliament Research Center. (2018). http://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/93319 (In Persian)
IRNA NewsAgency.(2018).http://www.irna.ir/rkhorasan/fa/News/82965353. (In Persian)
IRIB News Agency. (2018). http://www.iribnews.ir/fa/news/174399. (In Persian)
Kamran, H., Yari, E., & Abedi, M. (2017). Environmental security and national security in the context of cross-border hydropolitics developments (case study: Harirud). GEOGRAPHY, 15 (52); 305 – 328. (In Persian)
Koff, H., & Maganda, C. (2015). Against the current: transboundary water management in small states on two continents. Water International, 40(2), 231-250.
Madani K., Hipel K.W. (2007). Strategic insights into the Jordan River conflict. In Kabbes K. C. (Ed), Proceeding of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Tampa, Florida.
Merlin, V., Sanver, I. O., & Sanver, M. R. (2006). Properties of majoritarian compromise, efficient compromise, and related compromise rules. Preliminary version.
Motaghi, A., kavianirad, M., zarghani, S., Sadrania, H. (2018). Identifying and analyzing the factors affecting the hydropolitical relations of Iran and Afghanistan in the Harirud Basin. Journal of Subcontinent Researches, 10(34), 235-254. (In Persian)
Moshfegh, A., Attari, J. (2018). Water resource planning based on the sovereignty doctrines in sharing of transboundary water resources. Iran Water Resources Research, 14(4), 80-91. (In Persian)
Nandalal, K., Hipel, K.W. (2007). Strategic decision support for resolving conflict over water sharing among countries along the Syr Darya River in the Aral Sea Basin, JWater Resour Plan Manage 133(4), 289–299.
Nagheeby, M., & Warner, J. (2018). The geopolitical overlay of the hydropolitics of the Harirud River Basin. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(6), 839-860.
Nagheeby, M., Piri, D., & Faure, M. (2019). The legitimacy of dam development in international watercourses: A case study of the Harirud River Basin. Transnational Environmental Law Journal, 8(2), 247-278.
Nurmi, H. (1999). Voting paradoxes and how to deal with them. Springer Science & Business Media.
Peterson, S. (2013). Why a dam in Afghanistan might set back peace. Christian Science Monitor.Retrievedfromhttp://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-SouthCentral/2013/0730/
Roberts, K (2006). Social choice theory and the informational basis approach. Nuffield College, Oxford.
Sertel, M. R., & Yılmaz, B. (1999). The majoritarian compromise is majoritarian-optimal and subgame-perfect implementable. Social Choice and Welfare, 16(4), 615-627.
Sinaee, V. (2012). Hydropolitics and Human Security: Water Cooperation in Relations between Iran, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs, 2, 111-133. (In Persian)
Thomas, V., & Warner, J. (2015) Hydropolitics in the Harirud/ Tejen River Basin: Afghanistan as hydro-hegemon? Water International, 40 (4), 593-613.
Wohlers, T. E., Mason, A., Schmaltz, E. J., & Wood, J. (2012). Water Management and Conflicts in Oklahoma: Regulating and Competing for Limited Common Pool Resources. Oklahoma Politics, 22(1), 41-71.
Young, P. (1995). Optimal voting rules. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(1), 51-64.
Zarghani, S. H., & Lotfi, A. (2012). The Role of international rivers in regional cooperation and convergence:The case of the Harirud and the Dam of Dousti. Journal of Geography and Regional Development (Peer-Reviewed), 9(16), 57-82. (In Persian)
_||_
Ajlali, F. (2010). Principle of Irrigation, Payamnor University Press. (In Persian)
Gleick, P. (1996). Basic water requirements for human activities: Meeting basic needs. Water International, 21 (2), 83-92.
Azizi, A., Ghorbani, A., Malekmohammadi, B., & Jafari, H. R. (2017). Government management and overexploitation of groundwater resources: absence of local community initiatives in Ardabil plain-Iran. Journal of environmental planning and management, 60(10), 1785-1808.
Bassett, G. W., & Persky, J. (1999). Robust voting. Public Choice, 99(3-4), 299-310.
Danesh yazdi, M., Abrishamchi, A., Tajrishy, M. (2014). Conflict Resolution of Water Resources Allocations Using the Game Theoretic Approach: The Case of Orumieh River Basin. Journal of Water and Wastewater, 25(2), 48-57. (In Persian)
Elimam, L., Rheinheimer, D., Connell, C., & Madani, K. (2008). An ancient struggle: a game theory approach to resolving the Nile conflict. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008: Ahupua'A (pp. 1-10).
Favre, R., & Kamal, G. M. (2004). Watershed atlas of Afghanistan. Kabul: Ministry of Irrigation, Water Resources and Environment.
Ghandhary, A., Alavi Moghadam, S. M. R., Omranian Khorasani, H. (2016). Predicting the Necessity of Cooperation between the Harirud Basin Countries Based on Game Theory: The Shapely Value Approach. Journal of Water and Sustainable Development, 3(1), 115-121. (In Persian)
Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., Kinsara, R. (2014). Strategic Investigations of Water Conflicts in the Middle East. Group Decis Negot, 23:355–376.
Islamic Parliament Research Center. (2018). http://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/93319 (In Persian)
IRNA NewsAgency.(2018).http://www.irna.ir/rkhorasan/fa/News/82965353. (In Persian)
IRIB News Agency. (2018). http://www.iribnews.ir/fa/news/174399. (In Persian)
Kamran, H., Yari, E., & Abedi, M. (2017). Environmental security and national security in the context of cross-border hydropolitics developments (case study: Harirud). GEOGRAPHY, 15 (52); 305 – 328. (In Persian)
Koff, H., & Maganda, C. (2015). Against the current: transboundary water management in small states on two continents. Water International, 40(2), 231-250.
Madani K., Hipel K.W. (2007). Strategic insights into the Jordan River conflict. In Kabbes K. C. (Ed), Proceeding of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Tampa, Florida.
Merlin, V., Sanver, I. O., & Sanver, M. R. (2006). Properties of majoritarian compromise, efficient compromise, and related compromise rules. Preliminary version.
Motaghi, A., kavianirad, M., zarghani, S., Sadrania, H. (2018). Identifying and analyzing the factors affecting the hydropolitical relations of Iran and Afghanistan in the Harirud Basin. Journal of Subcontinent Researches, 10(34), 235-254. (In Persian)
Moshfegh, A., Attari, J. (2018). Water resource planning based on the sovereignty doctrines in sharing of transboundary water resources. Iran Water Resources Research, 14(4), 80-91. (In Persian)
Nandalal, K., Hipel, K.W. (2007). Strategic decision support for resolving conflict over water sharing among countries along the Syr Darya River in the Aral Sea Basin, JWater Resour Plan Manage 133(4), 289–299.
Nagheeby, M., & Warner, J. (2018). The geopolitical overlay of the hydropolitics of the Harirud River Basin. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(6), 839-860.
Nagheeby, M., Piri, D., & Faure, M. (2019). The legitimacy of dam development in international watercourses: A case study of the Harirud River Basin. Transnational Environmental Law Journal, 8(2), 247-278.
Nurmi, H. (1999). Voting paradoxes and how to deal with them. Springer Science & Business Media.
Peterson, S. (2013). Why a dam in Afghanistan might set back peace. Christian Science Monitor.Retrievedfromhttp://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-SouthCentral/2013/0730/
Roberts, K (2006). Social choice theory and the informational basis approach. Nuffield College, Oxford.
Sertel, M. R., & Yılmaz, B. (1999). The majoritarian compromise is majoritarian-optimal and subgame-perfect implementable. Social Choice and Welfare, 16(4), 615-627.
Sinaee, V. (2012). Hydropolitics and Human Security: Water Cooperation in Relations between Iran, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs, 2, 111-133. (In Persian)
Thomas, V., & Warner, J. (2015) Hydropolitics in the Harirud/ Tejen River Basin: Afghanistan as hydro-hegemon? Water International, 40 (4), 593-613.
Wohlers, T. E., Mason, A., Schmaltz, E. J., & Wood, J. (2012). Water Management and Conflicts in Oklahoma: Regulating and Competing for Limited Common Pool Resources. Oklahoma Politics, 22(1), 41-71.
Young, P. (1995). Optimal voting rules. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(1), 51-64.
Zarghani, S. H., & Lotfi, A. (2012). The Role of international rivers in regional cooperation and convergence:The case of the Harirud and the Dam of Dousti. Journal of Geography and Regional Development (Peer-Reviewed), 9(16), 57-82. (In Persian)
