Abstract

The main objective of this research is to assess the Role of the mediators in 2020
Ethiopia and Egypt negotiation concerning GERD. In order to achieve the research
objectives the researcher used qualitative methods of the study because the research
questions require for the detail and deep information’s from people experience and
academic, their personal perceptions and knowledge. the data collecting instrument is in-
depth interview. The research employed which is equitable utilization theoretical
framework. The research dig out the following findings the mediator parties were not fair
and independent. It is also found that in the January 2020 Negotiation Ethiopia‘s right to
water was in question and Egypt tried to protect historical water hegemony status quo in
the Nile basin by the help of the mediators.

Key words
Equitable utilization, Mediator, negotiation, shared water, Water Diplomacy

Table of contents

Abstract.............................................................................................................................................i
CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTIONS.........................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER TWO.............................................................................................................................2
RESEARCH DESIGN.....................................................................................................................2

i
3.1 Population, Sample Size and Sampling Techniques..................................................................2
3.1.1 Population of the Study..........................................................................................................2
3.1.3 Sources, Types and Data Collecting Procedures....................................................................3
3.1.4 Data Collecting Instruments...................................................................................................4
3.2 Method of Data Analysis...........................................................................................................5
CHAPTER THREE.........................................................................................................................5
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................5
Introduction......................................................................................................................................5
Conclusions....................................................................................................................................11
Recommendations..........................................................................................................................11
References......................................................................................................................................14
APPENDICIES..............................................................................................................................18
Appendix I.....................................................................................................................................18
Interview questions........................................................................................................................18
Appendix II....................................................................................................................................19

ii
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTIONS
Shared water resources could be a reason for disagreement or competition. Especially, the
development of frameworks on the common waterway may lead to conflict. Ethiopia and
Egypt has historical tensions and untrusted each other especially after the inauguration of
GERD the tension rose; different time Egypt and Ethiopia tried to settle their water dispute in
diplomatic way yet not fruit full. Currently Ethiopia and Egypt conducting diplomatic
relation to solve conflict interests of the two countries with the help of three parties: , IMF
World Bank and American Treasury minister. Hence it is, this research thesis has examined
the role of the mediators. The research tries to dig out the inside and deep information from
personal perception of targeted group’s sources. Target sources selected based on their
experience and knowledge who are the GERD negotiators and elites of international law and
political science background. The research delimited to only Ethiopia and Egypt diplomatic
negotiation in 2020 concerning GERD filling issues and the research believed to bring some
light in the research area of Egypt and Ethiopia water diplomacy.

CHAPTER TWO
RESEARCH DESIGN
Since the research method is Qualitative the research approach is deductive (qualitative
researches are more likely to be deductive research approach). The research generate
concepts (knowledge) of Diplomatic relations of Egypt and Ethiopia based on the research
theoretical framework equitable utilization theory. The equitable utilization of a world river
by different states is gaining acceptance. Recent Helsinki Rules has adopted this theory
because the basis of jurisprudence with relevancy the sharing of waters of a world river by

1
different riparian states. The qualitative method of data analyzing has implemented to dig out
the role of the mediators in recent diplomatic negotiation of Ethiopia and Egypt in the issue
of filling and operation of GERD. The study is qualitative in the sense that it involves
analyzing the responses obtained using in-depth interview, and secondary sources data.
3.1 Population, Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

3.1.1 Population of the Study

MoFA, and Addis Ababa School of Law and Governance elites and African studies
department Bahirdar University department of political science and international relation are
selected as a subject of the research for the reason that they are an ideal place for the issue of
Egypt and Ethiopia diplomatic defrost for the reason that their functions directly related to
the area of the study. Because all of targeted sources have information exposure in the recent
issues of Ethiopia and Egypt supposed that some of them engaged in the negotiation process
and some of them have academic knowledge about the trans-boundary water disputes. .
Hence, MoFA, the MoFA, and Addis Ababa University Law and African studies department
Bahirdar University department of political science and international relation are potential
primary source of the research. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) is responsible for
all matters related to foreign countries. Addis Ababa University department of international
law also the potential sources of this research. The researcher has selected Addis Ababa
University in the ground department of international law has big reputation in the area of
international laws. Elites of Addis Ababa School of Law and Governance elites believe to
give enough and satisfactory information in relating to Egypt and Ethiopia recent negotiation
of GERD based on international law knowledge. Bahirdar university Department of Political
Sciences and International Relations is an outstanding university in Ethiopia which providing
significant importance on the contemporary political developments in Ethiopia and emerging
and crosscutting issues of domestic, regional and global significance in this case Bahirdar
university department of political science and international relations selected as important
sources of this research.

3.1.2 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

2
As it depicted above, the study population of subjects are a total of GERD negotiator from
MoFA, Addis Ababa School of Law elites and Bahirdar University department of political
science and international relation elite. With regard to selecting in-depth-interview
respondents from targeted organizations (Addis Ababa University elites, Bahirdar University
elites GERD negotiators from MoFA,) has purposively selected. The reason behind using
purposive sampling method is that interviews are unique for the reason they generally use
smaller samples ) (Wimmer, R. D. & Dominick, J. R , 2011),(Bhattacherjee, 2012)also said
“qualitative research usually employs small, focused samples that fit the phenomenon of
interest, rather than large, random samples” (Bhattacherjee, 2012). The researcher
interviewed eight persons the interviewed persons are heterogeneous; the two legal elites and
one experts from department of African studies in Addis Ababa University and one of
Ethiopian negotiators from MoFA, one negotiator from technical expert team negotiators, 3
Bahirdar university political science and international relation elites to assess the role of the
mediators in Ethio-Egypt negotiation in the filling and operations of GERD.

3.1.3 Sources, Types and Data Collecting Procedures

Both primary and secondary sources have used in the study in order to get a deeper insight on
to examine the prospectus and challenges of Ethiopia and Egypt diplomatic defrost in the
issue of GERD filing reservoir. For the primary data collection, in-depth interviews
conducted. The reasons behind for the choice of these technique is it allow the researcher to
collect relevant information on the study topic from a wide range of sources and help to
guide the respondents to provide relevant information. In the secondary data, relevant books,
and related documents has reviewed in the literature and other parts. Recent international and
local media reports has also considered as secondary sources of this study.
3.1.4 Data Collecting Instruments
To gather the necessary information for the study, the researcher applied in-depth interviews
methods.
(a) In-depth Interview
Data gathered through in-depth interviews from the above-mentioned of GERD negotiator
from MoFA , Addis Ababa School of Law elites and Bahirdar University department of
political science and international relation elite to know the role of the mediators in 2020

3
Ethiopia and Egypt negotiation. That aside, in depth interviews has conducted with subjects
aiming to establish their practical diplomatic relations. An in-depth interview allows the
researcher to ask occasional questions for clarification and with a minimum interruption can
help the interview move for better information (Zoltan, 2007:136). Though it criticized for
taking much time, the method helps the researcher to get deep meaning about the research
problem and to establish a very good rapport with the interviewee.
Scholars who wrote about this issue also stated that individual interview prevents the spiral
of silence impacts. The researcher, therefore, used semi-structured interview with a total of
GERD negotiator from MoFA , Addis Ababa School of Law elites and Bahirdar University
department of political science and international relation elite who are they have selected
purposively. With regard to selecting in-depth-interview respondent’s participants,
respondents from targeted organizations (of GERD negotiators from MoFA , Addis Ababa
University department of international law elites and Bahirdar University department of
political science and international relation elites) have purposively selected. The reason
behind using purposive sampling method is that interviews are unique for the reason they
generally use smaller samples ) (Wimmer, R. D. & Dominick, J. R , 2011)(P.139)
(Bhattacherjee, 2012)also said “qualitative research usually employs small, focused samples
that fit the phenomenon of interest, rather than large, random samples” (Bhattacherjee, 2012)
(P.104).
(b) Secondary Sources
In addition to in-depth interview the researcher took data from secondary sources .Secondary
sources mainly from international media‘s, books, journal articles, unpublished materials and
websites.
3.2 Method of Data Analysis
The data analyzed using qualitative techniques.
3.2.1 Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis method has implemented for data to be collected using document
analysis, and in-depth interview methods. Data’s from interview analyzed qualitatively
thematically. By doing so, these qualitative data’s believe to give deep information about the
issue. Moreover, an interviews are initially transcribed word-for-word with any emotions and
feelings exhibited by the respondent during the dialogue. The data obtained from secondary

4
sources analyzed to fill the gaps of the information obtained from interviews, secondary data
document analysis applied to fill the limitations of in-depth interview to maximize the
credibility of the research.
CHAPTER THREE
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This section analyses and interpret the data which get from in-depth interviews of political
sciences and international law elites and GERD negotiators in the Ethiopian side. Secondary
data which get from web sites and international media’s also analyzed.
The role of the mediator changed to judicial body
Professor of Addis Ababa University point out that he wonder why USA treasury minster
involve as an observer or mediator instead of state department as usual it is state department
who involve in this kind of relation. He suggest his assumption as it might be USA and Egypt
planned overwhelming Ethiopian negotiator by lots of money (Informant 1 March 11,
2020).
Every time after we reached in agreement Egyptian negotiators frequently change their ideas;
after we reached in agreement they turn back the agenda from the beginning that was before
the mediator joining us however after the mediators joined us the rolling back behavior of
Egyptian negotiators improved and it saved our time and efforts (Informant 2 , June 1, 2020).
There was National interest loss in the negotiation
In the first place Ethiopia gave her sovereign rights to trilateral negotiation it is the sovereign
rights of one country to build a dam without negotiation to other party Helsink rule Article
IV guaranteed this right; “Each basin State is entitled, within its territory, to a reasonable and
equitable share in the beneficial uses of the waters of an international drainage basin”.
The agreement is out of any international law, there is not any international law that can
restrict Ethiopia from filling and operating the dam unless it causes significant harm on other
riparian countries. Significant harm in legal term defined as ‘ cause huge damage on other
lower and upper riparian countries’ .in Egypt and Ethiopian case the technical team had
proved that “ GERD will not cause significant harm on lower riparian countries” (personal
interview with technical team negotiators June 1). Within this circumstance restricting
Ethiopia from using the water is illegal and it totally damages Ethiopian national interest.

5
In the negotiation five controversies arose:- 1) the scope of the agreement ,concerning this
the three country agreed on the fact that the scope of their negotiation will be GERD filling
and operation however Egypt proposed certain bonding scopes on the future water
development in the Nile river. Ethiopia preferred the articulation of there shall not be water
allocation regime in the negotiation however, Egypt proposition is water allocation, and there
must be the articulation of non-prejudice the previous agreements (1929 and 1959
agreements).
2) The other controversial issue was the the negotiation doctrine , concerning this Egypt
needed natural flow doctrine and Ethiopia preferred the concepts of water body flow .both
countries proposed different theoretical concepts based on their national interest. Lately the
prepared final agreement proposed in the needs of Egypt that diminishes the national
interests of Ethiopia. The natural flow doctrine assumption will give the whole tributaries of
Ethiopia in control of Egypt including Lake Tana which will cause huge national interest loss
for Ethiopia. Ethiopia resist as the upstream of GERD would not include in the negotiation
but Egypt insisted the upstream of GERD should include in the negotiation, lately the
agreement were written in favor of Egypt. If Ethiopia would sign this agreement Ethiopia
will go to international arbitrary court whenever there is drop of water decreases. It is the
critical national interest clashes between Egypt and Ethiopia .Egypt thought to control the
whole amount of water from Ethiopia successfully accomplished by natural flow doctrine .in
the assumptions of natural flow doctrine the lower basin riparian s can regulate all tributaries
of Ethiopia water resources specially Egypt is the beneficiary as the huge amount users of the
Nile water. Natural flow doctrine will be totally loss for Ethiopia because the agreement will
regulate the future interests of Ethiopia to build other dams and water development projects.
Concerning to this the draft agreement will has negative impact for Ethiopian national
interests. But for Egypt and Sudan there is not a single accountability problem for both of
them (Informant 3 March 11, 2020).
3) How filling and operation of the dam would be is the third controversial issue which has
national interest clashes, issues related to, in what time frame the reservoir will filled? And in
what operational modality will the GERD functioned? Is the main issues of this controversy?
In this phenomena two stages presented to deal on. the first one is the initial stage, in this
stage intended to fill the reservoir up to 18.5 BCM water and the second stage is the

6
subsequent stage which is the main controversial issues between the two countries, in this
stage the water expect to be up to 40.5 BCM Ethiopia proposed 6-7 years and Egypt
proposed more than 10 years’ time frame. Concerning to this long time frame will be risky
for Ethiopia national interest because it takes much effort to fill the reservoir because of
evaporation especially during dry seasons.
4) The fourth controversial issue is dry season mitigation mechanisms, this agreement
request Ethiopia to release water from GERD to lower stream basin countries (usually the
users are Egypt and Sudan). This is insulting for one country, we spend much money, effort
and everything and we requested to release water from our dam; “it is insulting us” as
sovereign state (Informant 3 March 11, 2020).
5) monitory mechanism concerning to how much water reserved and how much water
released ,this is again diminishing our sovereign right ,we may report how the dam filling
going on and other issues by ourselves ,however inspecting our own dam operation is taking
away our sovereign right (Informant 3 March 11,2020).
February 26, 2020 Ethiopian government announced its statement in press release, the
statement from the government and the drafted agreement crashed each other. First of all the
drafted agreement said it is the end of the negotiation between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan;
the agreement paper indicated that all issues concerning to GERD filling and operation is
written there with the details. However the Ethiopian government statement was announced
the negotiation is yet not to end. The draft agreement state that the agreement prepared by the
legal and technical teams of the three countries, in the consent and comments of ministers in
the assistance of USA.
There is mysterious fact here either Ethiopian negotiators agreed on the points and denied
later or America, IMF and WB had demanded Ethiopia to agree in favor of Egypt. If the
agreement paper were prepared in the consent of legal, technical teams and ministers; the
negotiators had demanded by USA, IMF and WB; if the agreement were prepared without
the consent of Ethiopian negotiators it is USA tried had bound Ethiopia in historical
agreement in favoring Egypt (Informant 4 march 11).
In fact based on January 26/2020 initial agreement there is a doubt Ethiopian negotiators
have not consent about the drafted agreement instead the incisal agreement lead for the
thought Ethiopian negotiators have consents and due to different reasons they accepted the

7
agreement but later change their mind. Low Capacity of the negotiators to negotiate this
complicated negotiation, incentives from USA treasury minister, IMF and WB to accept the
agreement and the courtesy are the suggested reasons by more than two researcher’s
interviewee.
American treasury minister first engaged in the negotiation as an observer then this role
changed to agreement drafter role and then the role changed to judiciary role and declare
mandatory statement on Ethiopia to sign the agreement .the term observer is observer
observer means a mere role not more than set and observe the negotiation however their role
changed radically: Ethiopian negotiators should notice this change from the beginning and
stop them from continue this activity. The role of Ethiopian negotiator is minimal here we
can say they were absent from the negotiation process. It might also see as regime interest
and national interest crash (Informant 4 march 11, 2020).
On the Ethiopian side there is limitation to know the Egypt bargaining power and prepared
for the worst as much as Egypt however the final decision to resign from the agreement is
good decision to protect Ethiopian interest (Informant 5 ).
Similarly Egypt accused by Sudan officials as “Egypt’s political elite has seen Sudan only as
a backyard entity and a guard of its water security and Egypt’s occasional attempts to
destabilize the regime in Khartoum in order to influence its Nile policies” (Tawik,2019).
It is not noble for Egypt to play a hegemon role in the Nile basin in any means.
In fact according to Helisnki rules Article V Ethiopia has the right to use the Nile River; The
Helsinki Rules, article V states, Each basin State is entitled, within its territory, to a
reasonable and equitable share in the beneficial uses of the waters of an international
drainage basin ‘Each basin state is entitled, within its territory, to an economical and
equitable share within the beneficial uses of the waters of a world drainage basin'. Egypt tried
to take this legal right from Ethiopia. Since Ethiopia using 20% of the river water it is
economical and reasonable because it will use for large number of population, it is not to
harassing Egypt. Equitable utilization of the Helisenk rules remind that the consideration of
economic and social needs of the various riparian states.
Though Article VIII (I) of the Helsinki Rules provides that ‘An existing reasonable use may
continue operative the previous use can be terminated by justifying incompatible use.

8
GERD and other irrigation and hydropower dams in Ethiopia can be an asset for the whole
Nile basin countries; since it can minimize the loss of much water resources. Whitngton and
other researchers agreed on this statement.
50 %, 40% of the water is lost through evaporation and seepage after leaving Lake Tana and
high temperatures in the Sudd swamps and the Aswan High Dam Reservoir lead to 50% and
15% losses of the Nile river-entering flows, respectively. The proposed solution is to
withdraw water for consumptive use before it enters the Sudd swamps and the Aswan High
Dam Reservoir (Whittington et al. cited in Onencan, 2018).
Also making all water development in the Upper Nile, wither it is irrigation or Hydropower
can be a potential negotiation idea; Onencan Agreed on this statement as follows.
Ethiopia has a high irrigation potential, and 94.5% remains untapped the hydropower
potentials of Ethiopia is high to supply energy to the entire basin and the African continent.
There will be an estimated saving of three billion cubic meters (BCM) per annum on the
evaporation losses because Ethiopia is on the Blue Nile gorge with colder temperate
Onencan,(2018).

Conclusions
In the negotiation Egypt planed wisely the negotiation out come to owe her historical water
rights. USA and Egypt worked together to Gard water Hegemon of Egypt in the Nile basin.
The late 1990 doctrine tried to enforce in the negotiation which is factually myopic and
legally “anarchic:” they ignore other states’ need for and reliance on the waters of an
international watercourse, in the negotiation the final agreement prepared in line with
absolute territorial integrity that the upstream state may do nothing that might affect the
natural flow of the water into the downstream state Such a theory could have devastating
effects upon upstream states that develop their water resources more slowly than their
downstream neighbors. For it would effectively prohibit any development in an upstream
state that adversely affected the flow of the water to a state or states downstream. In the
agreement Ethiopia right to water was in question.
Among four theories of the right to water doctrines to administer international shared water
resources the first two, Absolute territorial sovereignty and absolute territorial integrity will

9
 not help to solve the current disputes between Ethiopia and Egypt because while the absolute
territorial sovereignty give absolute right to Ethiopia and favors Ethiopia to use any amount
of Nile water absolute territorial integrity give absolute right to Egypt to defending Ethiopia
from using Nile water in the contemporary time there is not any abiding international water
law which govern international water disputes the two country could prefer those two
different doctrines and off course actually they are doing it. However equitable utilization
and community of interest doctrine suggested as best doctrine to solve the contemporary
world water disputes Turkey and Armenia solve their disputes using equitable utilization
doctrines. Community of interest reinforces equitable utilization doctrines. Equitable
utilization requires reasonable usage.

Recommendations
In the Ethio –Egypt diplomatic notations we learn that the absence of effective negotiation
skills and the absence of responsible, fair and independent international institutions to lead
water diplomacy affects the negotiation process. For further Ethiopia and Egypt Negations
the researcher would like to suggest the following recommendations.
1. Community of interest and equitable utilization doctrines are the best solution to govern
Ethio- Egypt water disputes.
2. Helsenki rules article V should be applied on Ethiopia and Egypt water disputes: This are,
A) Analyzing Egypt existing reasonable use;
B) Study wither Egypt water usage is an outmoded and wasteful or not,
C) Analyze wither the competing factors may indicate that some modification of the existing use
is called for or not. And so on.
3. Value-based water distribution, value- based distribution will be sustainable solution for the
Nile basin water allocation because it saves three BCM per annum on the evaporation losses;
the concept recommends to invest on the upper Nile state and share the value to the other
basin countries.
References

10
Abby Muricho Onencan, Bartel Van de Walle, Equitable and Reasonable Utilization:
Reconstructing the Nile Basin Water Allocation Dialogue, Delft University of
Technology.707(10).
Ana Elisa Cascão & Alan Nicol (2016) GERD: new norms of cooperation in the Nile Basin?,
Water International, 41:4, 550-573, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2016.1180763
Barberis, J., 2015. Julio Barberis,“International Rivers,” in Encyclopedia of Public International
Law ed, s.l.: Encyclopedia of Public International Law ed.
Benjamin Pohl and Susanne Schmeier, 2014. newsecuritybeat. [Online]
Available at: http//www.newsecuritybeat.org.
[Accessed 28 12 2019].
Benvenisti, E., 2002. Sharing Transboundary Resources: International Law and Optimal Resource
Use. 1 ed. Meliborn: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, C. M., 2012. Past and future legal framework of the Nile River Basin. 2 ed. Georgetown:
GeorgeTown Environmental Law review.
Casca˜o, A. E., 2008. Ethiopia–Challenges to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile Basin. Department of
Geography, King’s College London, The Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK., p. 16.
Christina M. Carroll, GeorgeTown. Past and future legal framework of the Nile River Basin
Georgetown International. 2 ed. 1999: George Town international international review.
Costas M. Constantinou,Paul Sharp, 2010. research gate. [Online]
Available at: htttp/www.researchgate.net
[Accessed 28 december 2019].
Costas M. Constantinou,Paul Sharp, 2016. researchgate. [Online]
Available at: htttp/www.researchgate.net
[Accessed 28 december 2019].
E-internationalrelationstudents, 2011. E-internationalrelationstudents. [Online]
Available at: http//www.e-ir.info
[Accessed 27 december 2019].
Ejigu, N. A., 2016. Construction of Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile:Cause for
Cooperation or Conflict among Egypt, Ethiopia and. University, p. 110.
Elemam, H. E. R., 2013. Egypt and Collective Action Mechanisms in the Nile Basin. 1 ed.
Newyork: Cmbrige Universty Press.

11
Endalcachew Bayeh, 2015, New Development in the Ethio-Egypt Relations over the Hydro-
Politics of Nile: Questioning its True Prospects, international journal of political science and
development 3(3), p.159-165.
Klimes, 2019. siwi.org. [Online]
Available at: http//www.siwi.org
[Accessed 28 12 2019].
Kliot, N., 2005. Water resources and conflict in the Middle East. 4 ed. Newyork: Routldge.
Lumumba, P. L. O., 2016. The Interpretation of the 1929 Treaty and its Legal Relevance and
Implications for stablity of the region. African socialogical reviue, 11(1), pp. 10-12.
Mccaffery Stephen C. , Sinjela Mpazi,1998. International water courses. American Society of
international law 92(1),;UN water courses, 1997.
Mekonnen, D. Z., 2010. The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement Negotiations and the
Adoption of a ‘Water Security’ Paradigm: Flight into Obscurity or a Logical Cul-desac?. The
European Journal of International Law, 2(2), p. 426.
M.K. Mahlakeng, 2017. China and the Nile River Basin: The Changing Hydro political Status Quo.
African Studies association of India. 10(1), p.73-97.
Paisley, R., 2002. Adversaries into Partnerships: International Water Law and the Equitable
Sharing of Downstream Benefits. Melborne journal of international law, 14(1), p. 281.
Parhi, P.K., Sankhua, R.N., (2013) Beyond the Transboundary River: Issues of Riparian
Responsibilities. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 94, 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-014-
0067-x
Rahaman, M. M., 2009. Principles of international water law: creating effective transboundary
waterresources management International. Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman, “Principles of
international water law: creating effective tra International Journal of Sustainable Society ,
1(3), p. 208.
Richard K. Paisley and Taylor W. Henshaw, 2013. Transboundary governance of the Nile River
Basin: Past, present and future. Envaroimental Development, 7(7), p. 64.
Salman, S. M., 2007. The Helsinki Rules, the UN Watercourses Convention and the Berlin Rules:
perspectives on international water law. water resource development, 23(4), p. 626.
Salman M.A. Salman (2012), The Nile Basin Cooperative Frame work Agreement: a peacefully
unfolding African spring? Routledge Taylors Group, 38 (1)

12
Samuel C. Wiel, (1914), Theories of water Law. The Harvard Law Review Association
27(6),p.530-544.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1326782
Accessed: 07-03-2020 12:04 UTC
Schmeier, S., 2018. www.globalwaterforum.org). [Online]
Available at: www.globalwaterforum.org)
[Accessed 28 12 2019].
SC McCaffrey,(2007), The Law of International Watercourses (2nd edn, Oxford University Press .
117.
Sharp, P., 2009. diplomatic theory of international relations. 1 ed. Minneosota: Cmbrige universty
press.
Shaw, M. N., 2003. International law. 5 ed. Newyork: Cambrige Universty Press.
Swain, A., 2011. Challenges for water sharing in the Nile basin: changing geo-politics and
changing climate. Hydrological scince journal, 56(4), pp. 687-702.
Tvedt, T., 2010. The river Nile in the post-colonial age: conflict and cooperation among the Nile
Basin countries. 1 ed. Newyork: IB Tauris.
Tawfik, R. 2019. Beyond the river: Elite perceptions and regional cooperation in the Eastern Nile
Basin. Water Alternatives 12(2), p. 655-675
UN WATERCOURAlistair Rieu-Clarke,Ruby Moynihan ,Bjørn-Oliver Magsig,UNGA, 2010. UN
WATERCOURSES CONVENTIONUser’s Guide, NewYork: United Nation General
Assembly.
UN, 2015. UNWATER. [Online]
Available at: http//www.unwater.ogr
[Accessed 27 12 2019].
UNWATER, 2008. Transbondery Water, Zaragoza, Spain: United Nations Office to Support the
International Decade for Action ‘Water for Life’ 2005-2015 (UN-IDfA).
UNwater, 2015. UN Water. [Online]
Available at: https://www.unwater.org/
[Accessed 29 December 2019].
Vinogradov, 2002. Transforming Potential Conflict into Cooperation, al: UNESCO.
Vinogradov, S., 20013. Transforming Potential Conflict into Cooperation, Newyork: UNESCO.

13
Yacob, A., 2010. Ethiopia and the eastern Nile Basins. Dubendorf Aquatic scince, 67(67).
Awulachew, et al., 2012. The Nile River Basin: Water, Agriculture, Governance, and
livelihoods, (London. 8 ed. Newyork: Routledge.
www.globalwaterforem.org, 2015. globalwaterforem. [Online]
Available at: http//www.globalwaterforem.org),2015)
[Accessed 27 12 2019].
www.cambridge.org,2017
www.DW.com, Accesed and Reported on January 26,Februrey ,3 and Februrey 15,2020
www.Aljezera.com Accessed and Reported January 26, February, 3 and February 15, 2020
www.BBCworldnews.com Accsesed and reported January 26,Februrey ,3 and Februrey 15,2020
www.treasury.gov Accsesed on July15/2020 ,rported January 31/2020

APPENDICIES
Appendix I
Interview questions

1. Among different water share doctrines which type of water share doctrine does Ethiopia and
Egypt using in the negotiation?
2. How do you explain prospectus of Ethiopia and Egypt diplomatic defrosts in relating to
filling reservoir?
3. How do you explain challenges of Ethiopia and Egypt diplomatic defrosts in relating to
filling reservoir
4. Egypt blamed as using hegemonic power in the Nile basin do you think still Egypt using
hegemonic power?
5. Do you think the current initial agreement can be sustainable solution for historical tension
between Ethiopia and Egypt?

14
6. How do you express the efforts of both countries in solving historical tension in diplomatic
way?
7. Is there national interest loss in the negotiation process
8. How do you explain the role of mediators in the negotiation process
9. What is the impacts of the involvement of America
10. Does the negotiation has negative impact for Ethiopia
11. Does Ethiopia construct discourse such as highlighting the optimal utilization of the water
resources including social, environmental, economic and political sustainable policies at the
basin level?
12. Is there bargaining power (a process in which decisions result from the reciprocal adjustment
of interests by self‐oriented individuals or groups) in the negotiations?

Appendix II
Lists of Informants

Informant Positions Place of work Date of

interview

Informant 1 African study A.A March 11

Professor
Informant 2 GERD Tchnical BDU June1
negotiator

Informant 3 Law elite AAU March 11

Informant 4 law elite AAU March 11
Informant 5 Political science BDU May 21
elite

Notes; the researcher could not use the source name in consideration of research ethics.

15
16