USE OF AMBIGUITY IN TRANSBOUNDARY RIVER BASINS NEGOTIATIONS: THE CASE OF THE NILE RIVER BASIN

The aim of the article is to critically assess the role of constructed ambiguity in the negotiations process and design of agreements in the Nile River Basin, and how this ambiguity can eventually contribute to resolve the long-lasting deadlock in the Basin. According to Fischhendler (2008a and 2008b), the role of ambiguity in the design of water treaties has thus far been overlooked; the author has developed a framework to analyse several types of deliberate ambiguity and to examine the potential for “constructive ambiguity ” and/or “destructive ambiguity”, applied to the case of the 1994 Israeli-Jordan water agreement. This paper adopts and modifies the framework in order to understand the role of ambiguity within the context of asymmetric power relations in the Nile River Basin. The power analysis is informed by the “Framework of Hydro-Hegemony ” (Zeitoun and Warner 2006), developed to examine dynamics of transboundary water conflicts and cooperation. This paper aims to answer to the following research questions: Is ambiguity a power tool used by the hegemonic riparian states to prevent significant changes in the hegemonic status quo, or is ambiguity a bargaining tool used by the non-hegemonic riparian states to promote alternative hydropolitical agendas? Or, ultimately, is ambiguity a functional tool to create an illusionary consensus between divergent positions and policies