Water conflict

10 languages
 Article
 Talk
 Read
 Edit
 View history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Water war" redirects here. For the type of mock combat, see Water fight.
"Water warfare" redirects here. For the video game, see Water Warfare.

Ethiopia's move to fill the dam's reservoir could reduce Nile flows by as much as 25% and devastate
Egyptian farmlands.[1]

Water conflict is a term describing a conflict between countries, states, or

groups over the rights to access water resources.[2][3] The United
Nations recognizes that water disputes result from opposing interests of water
users, public or private.[4] A wide range of water conflicts appear throughout
history, though rarely are traditional wars waged over water alone. [5] Instead,
water has long been a source of tension and one of the causes for conflicts.
Water conflicts arise for several reasons, including territorial disputes, a fight for
resources, and strategic advantage.[6]
Water conflicts can occur on the intrastate and interstate levels. Interstate
conflicts occur between two or more neighboring countries that share a
transboundary water source, such as a river, sea, or groundwater basin. For
example, the Middle East has only 1% of the world's freshwater shared among
5% of the world's population.[7] Intrastate conflicts take place between two or
more parties in the same country. An example would be the conflicts between
farmers and industry (agricultural vs industrial use of water).
These conflicts occur over both freshwater and saltwater, and both between
and within nations. Conflicts occur mostly over freshwater; because freshwater
resources are necessary, yet scarce, they are the center of water disputes
arising out of need for potable water, irrigation and energy generation.[8] As
freshwater is a vital, yet unevenly distributed natural resource, its availability
often impacts the living and economic conditions of a country or region. The
lack of cost-effective water supply options in areas like the Middle East,[9] among
other elements of water crises can put severe pressures on all water users,
whether corporate, government, or individual, leading to tension, and possibly
aggression.[10]
There is a growing number of water conflicts that go unresolved, largely at the
sub-national level, and these will become more dangerous as water becomes
more scarce, climate changes alter local hydrology, and global population
increases.[11][12] The broad spectrum of water disputes makes them difficult to
address, but a wide range of strategies to reduce the risks of such disputes are
available. Local and international laws and agreements can help improve
sharing of international rivers and aquifers. Improved technology and institutions
can both improve water availability and water sharing in water-scarce regions.

Causes[edit]
See also: Climate security
Water scarcity has most often led to conflicts at local and regional levels.
[13]
 Water is a vital element for human life, and human activities are closely
connected to availability and quality of water.[14] Water is a limited resource.
Water conflicts occur because the demand for water resources and potable
water can exceed supply, or because control over access and allocation of
water may be disputed, or because water management institutions are weak or
missing. Elements of a water crisis may put pressures on affected parties to
obtain more of a shared water resource, causing diplomatic tension or outright
conflict.
Tensions and conflicts over water now occur more frequently at the subnational,
rather than the transnational, level. Violence between pastoralists and farmers
in sub-Saharan Africa are on the rise. Attacks on civilian water systems during
wars that start for other reasons have increased, such as in Yemen, Syria, and
Iraq.[15] Water scarcity can also exacerbate conflicts and political tensions which
are not directly caused by water. Gradual reductions over time in the quality
and/or quantity of fresh water can add to the instability of a region by depleting
the health of a population, obstructing economic development, and
exacerbating larger conflicts.[16]
Climate change and the growing global populations also combine to put new
pressures on limited water resources and increase the risk of water conflict. [17]

Predictions[edit]
Over the past 25 years, politicians, academics and journalists have frequently
expressed concern that disputes over water would be a source of future wars.
Commonly cited quotes include: that of former Egyptian Foreign Minister and
former Secretary-General of the United Nations Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who
forecast, "The next war in the Middle East will be fought over water, not
politics"; his successor at the United Nations, Kofi Annan, who in 2001 said,
"Fierce competition for fresh water may well become a source of conflict and
wars in the future," and the former Vice President of the World Bank, Ismail
Serageldin, who said the wars of the next century will be over water unless
significant changes in governance occurred. Moreover, "it is now commonly
said that future wars in the Middle East are more likely to be fought over water
than over oil," said Lester R. Brown at a previous Stockholm Water Conference.
[18]

The water wars hypothesis had its roots in earlier research carried out on a
small number of transboundary rivers such as the Indus, Jordan and Nile.
These particular rivers became the focus because they had experienced water-
related disputes. Specific events cited as evidence include Israel's bombing of
Syria's attempts to divert the Jordan's headwaters, and military threats by Egypt
against any country building dams in the upstream waters of the Nile.
Another factor raising the risks of water conflicts is growing competition for
water in water-scarce regions, where necessities for water supply for human
use, food production, ecosystems and other uses are running up against water
availability. Extreme hydrologic events such as floods and droughts are also
worsening the risks of water conflicts. As populations and economic
development increase, water demands can also increase, worsening
disagreements over the allocation and control of limited water in some regions
or countries, especially during drought, or in shared international watersheds. [12]
Water resources that span international boundaries are more likely to be a
source of collaboration and cooperation than war. Scientists working at
the International Water Management Institute have been investigating the
evidence behind water war predictions. Their findings show that, while it is true
there has been conflict related to water in a handful of international basins, in
the rest of the world's approximately 300 shared basins the record has been
largely positive. This is exemplified by the hundreds of treaties in place guiding
equitable water use between nations sharing water resources. The institutions
created by these agreements can, in fact, be important factors in ensuring
cooperation rather than conflict.[19]

Categories[edit]
Water-related conflicts can be categorized as follows: [20]

 Trigger: Water as a trigger or root cause of conflict, where there is a

dispute over the control of water or water systems or where economic
or physical access to water, or scarcity of water, triggers violence.
 Weapon: Water as a weapon of conflict, where water resources, or
water systems themselves, are used as a tool or weapon in a violent
conflict.
 Casualty: Water resources or water systems as a casualty of conflict,
where water resources, or water systems, are intentional or incidental
casualties or targets of violence.

Economic and trade issues[edit]

Water's viability as a commercial resource, which includes fishing, agriculture,
manufacturing, recreation and tourism, among other possibilities, can create
dispute even when access to potable water is not necessarily an issue. As a
resource, some consider water to be as valuable as oil, needed by nearly every
industry, and needed nearly every day.[21] Water shortages can completely
cripple an industry just as it can cripple a population, and affect developed
countries just as they affect countries with less-developed water infrastructure.
Water-based industries are more visible in water disputes, but commerce at all
levels can be damaged by a lack of water.
Fishing[edit]
Historically, fisheries have been the main sources of question, as nations
expanded and claimed portions of oceans and seas as territory for 'domestic'
commercial fishing. Certain lucrative areas, such as the Bering Sea, have a
history of dispute; in 1886 Great Britain and the United States clashed over
sealing fisheries,[22] and today Russia surrounds a pocket of international water
known as the Bering Sea Donut Hole. Conflict over fishing routes and access to
the hole was resolved in 1995 by a convention referred to colloquially as the
Donut Hole Agreement.[23]
Pollution[edit]
Corporate interest often crosses opposing commercial interest, as well as
environmental concerns, leading to another form of dispute. In the 1960s, Lake
Erie, and to a lesser extent, the other Great Lakes were polluted to the point of
massive fish death. Local communities suffered greatly from dismal water
quality until the United States Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972.[24]
Water pollution poses a significant health risk, especially in heavily
industrialized, heavily populated areas like China. In response to a worsening
situation in which entire cities lacked safe drinking water, China passed a
revised Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law. [25] The possibility of polluted
water making its way across international boundaries, as well as unrecognized
water pollution within a poorer country brings up questions of human rights,
allowing for international input on water pollution. There is no single framework
for dealing with pollution disputes local to a nation.

Responses[edit]
Cooperation[edit]
Transboundary institutions can be designed to promote cooperation, overcome
initial disputes and find ways of coping with the uncertainty created by climate
change.[26] The effectiveness of such institutions can also be monitored. [26]
The Indus River Commission and the 1960 Indus Water Treaty have survived
two wars between India and Pakistan despite the two countries' mutual hostility,
proving a successful mechanism in resolving conflicts by providing a framework
for consultation, inspection and exchange of data. The Mekong Committee has
functioned since 1957 and outlived the Vietnam War of 1955–1975. In contrast,
regional instability results when countries lack institutions to co-operate in
regional collaboration, like Egypt's plan for a high dam on the Nile. As of 2019
no global institution supervises the management of trans-boundary water
sources, and international co-operation has happened through ad
hoc collaboration between agencies, like the Mekong Committee which formed
due to an alliance between UNICEF and the US Bureau of Reclamation.
Formation of strong international institutions seems [original research?] to provide a way
forward – they encourage early intervention and management, [citation needed] avoiding
costly dispute-resolution processes.
The Israel/Jordan Project Prosperity[27][28] water-for-energy deal, with the
cooperation of the UAE, will bring solar generated electricity from Jordan to
Israel, and Israel will provide desalinated water to Jordan. The UAE will assist
with the installation of the solar power system in Jordan.
One common feature of almost all resolved disputes is that the negotiations had
a "need-based" instead of a "right–based" paradigm. Irrigable lands, population,
and technicalities of projects define "needs". The success of a need-based
paradigm is reflected in the only water agreement ever negotiated in the Jordan
River Basin, which focuses in needs not on rights of riparians. In the Indian
subcontinent, the irrigation requirements of Bangladesh determine water
allocations of the Ganges River.[citation needed] A need-based, regional approach
focuses on satisfying individuals with their need of water, ensuring that
minimum quantitative needs are met. It removes the conflict that arises when
countries view the treaty from a national-interest point-of-view and move away
from a zero-sum approach to a positive-sum, integrative approach that equitably
allocates water and its benefits.[citation needed] This means that both equity and
efficiency of water use systems become significant, particularly under water
scarcity. The combination of these two performance factors should occur in the
context of sustainability making continuous cooperation among all the
stakeholders in a learning mode highly desirable. [29]
Sustainable management of water resources[edit]
The Blue Peace framework developed by Strategic Foresight Group in
partnership with the governments of Switzerland and Sweden offers a unique
policy structure which promotes sustainable management of water resources
combined with cooperation for peace. By making the most of shared water-
resources through cooperation rather than mere allocation between countries,
the chances for peace can increase.[30][need quotation to verify] The Blue Peace approach has
proven effective in (for example) the Middle East [31][32] and the Nile basin.[31][33]
Programs by the United Nations[edit]
The UN UNESCO-IHP Groundwater Portal aims to help improve understanding
of water resources and foster effective water management. But by far the most
active UN program in water dispute resolution is its Potential Conflict to Co-
operation Potential (PCCP), which is in its third phase, training water
professionals in the Middle East and organizing educational efforts elsewhere.
[34]
 Its target groups include diplomats, lawmakers, civil society, and students of
water studies; by expanding knowledge of water disputes, it hopes to
encourage cooperation between nations in dealing with conflicts.
UNESCO has published a map of trans-boundary aquifers.[35] Academic work
focusing on water disputes has yet to yield a consistent method for mediating
international disputes, let alone local ones. But UNESCO faces optimistic
prospects for the future as water conflicts become more public, and as
increasing severity sobers obstinate interests.
Arbitration by international organizations[edit]
International organizations play the largest role in mediating water disputes and
improving water management. From scientific efforts to quantify water pollution,
to the World Trade Organization's efforts to resolve trade disputes between
nations, many types of water disputes can be addressed through current
frameworks and institutions.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) can arbitrate water disputes presented by
its member states when the disputes are commercial in nature. The WTO has
certain groups, such as its Fisheries Center, that work to monitor and rule on
relevant cases, although it is by no means the authority on conflict over water
resources.
Still, water conflict occurring domestically, as well as conflict that may not be
entirely commercial in nature may not be suitable for arbitration by the WTO.
Because water is so central to agricultural trade, water disputes may be subtly
implicated in WTO cases in the form of virtual water,[36][37] water used in the
production of goods and services but not directly traded between countries.
Countries with greater access to water supplies may fare better from an
economic standpoint than those facing crisis, which creates the potential for
conflict. Outraged by agriculture subsidies that displace domestic produce,
countries facing water shortages bring their case to the WTO.
The WTO plays more of a role in agriculturally based disputes that are relevant
to conflict over specific sources of water. Still, it provides an important
framework that shapes the way water will play into future economic disputes.
One school of thought entertains the notion of war over water, the ultimate
progression of an unresolved water dispute—scarce water resources combined
with the pressure of exponentially increasing population may outstrip the ability
of the WTO to maintain civility in trade issues. [38]

Transboundary water conflicts[edit]

See also: Water conflict in the Middle East and North Africa
Transboundary waters are waters in which two or more different states border
the same body of water. In order to reduce the risk of water conflicts,
transboundary water arrangements or agreements are often negotiated, but
many shared international rivers still lack such treaties. [39] According to the UN,
these cooperations are supposed to be equitable and sustainable in that each
state does not abuse the water, but rather use the water to their best benefits
while protecting and reserving it.[40]
International competition over water can arise when one country starts drawing
more water from a shared water source.[41] This is often the most efficient route
to getting needed water, but in the long term can cause conflict if water
is overdrafted. More than 50 countries on five continents are said to be at risk of
conflict over water.[42] Moreover, international water law can sometimes
exacerbate the potential for conflict: the legal principles of "prior
appropriation" and "riparianism" are both implicated in transboundary water
conflicts as both can mean that good luck historically and geographically can
legally divide countries into those with water abundance and those with scarcity.
The current interstate conflicts occur mainly in the Middle East (disputes
stemming from the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers among Turkey, Syria, and Iraq;
and the Jordan River conflict among Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and the State of
Palestine), in Africa (Nile River-related conflicts among Egypt, Ethiopia, and
Sudan),[3] as well as in Central Asia (the Aral Sea conflict among Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan).
A comprehensive online database of water-related conflicts—the Water Conflict
Chronology—has been developed by the Pacific Institute.[43] This database lists
violence over water going back around 4,500 years and include more than 1290
examples of violence over water resources
Tigris and Euphrates Rivers[edit]
During history there has been much conflict over use of water from rivers such
as the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.[44] Turkey's Southeastern Anatolia
Project (Guneydogu Anadolu Projesi, or GAP) on the Euphrates has potentially
serious consequences for water supplies in Syria and Iraq. [citation needed] During the
1950s multiple dams and other water projects were started as a result from
water sharing concerns particularly for downstream countries. [45]
Mekong basin (China and other Asian countries)[edit]
In the Mekong Basin, the most upstream country China is busy constructing
dams on the Mekong's headwaters, potentially leaving downstream countries
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand with less water. [46][47]
As of 2020, China has built 11 dams on the Mekong river, which flows from
China through Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam to the South
China Sea. Experts fear that China's ability to control the Mekong's flow gives it
leverage over downstream nations who rely on China's goodwill. [48] In 2018,
water levels in the Mekong River fell to their lowest in more than 100 years,
even during the annual monsoon season. [49] The Jinghong Dam, as of January
2020 the nearest Chinese dam upstream of the Thai border, has caused huge
fluctuations in river levels, affecting people's livelihoods downstream by
disrupting the river's natural cycle.[50]
Aral Sea Crisis[edit]
In another (in)famous case, Soviet-era overdevelopment of irrigation agriculture
(especially cotton) in Central Asia led to the Amu Darya River, shared by
Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan, almost completely drying
out, so much so that it has ceased to reach the Aral Sea, which is now much
reduced in extent and volume.[51]
Egypt and Ethiopia[edit]
In 1979, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat said that if Egypt were to ever go to
war again it would be over water. Separately, amidst Egypt–Ethiopia relations,
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said: "I am not worried that the
Egyptians will suddenly invade Ethiopia. Nobody who has tried that has lived to
tell the story."[52]
Conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance
Dam escalated in 2020.[53][54][55] Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed warned that
"No force can stop Ethiopia from building a dam. If there is need to go to war,
we could get millions readied."[54]
Egypt sees the dam as an existential threat, fearing that the dam will reduce the
amount of water it receives from the Nile.[55] Both countries face the threat of
water shortage, as demand for water is projected to increase with growing
population, increased urbanisation and pursuit of economic growth. Tensions
are made worse as a result of fundamental differences in beliefs over water
rights; Egypt claims its rights to the Nile water on the basis of historical practice,
whereas Ethiopia claims its rights to the water based on geography, [56] where
85% of its water comes from highland sources within its territory. [57] While
the Nile Basin Initiative provides a platform to ensure sustainable management
of water resources through cooperation of riparian countries, [58] the Cooperative
Framework Agreement has only been ratified by six of 11 countries to date. [59]

Due to record low rainfall in Summer 2005, the reservoir behind Sameura Dam runs low. The
reservoir supplies water to Takamatsu, Shikoku Island, Japan.

India-Pakistan water conflicts[edit]

In 1948, India and Pakistan had a dispute over the sharing of water rights to
the Indus River and its tributaries.[60][61] An agreement was reached after five
weeks and the dispute was followed by the signing of the Indus Waters
Treaty in 1960.[60][61]
Competition for transboundary water sources could also be worsened as a
result of escalating tensions between countries, as in the case
between India and Pakistan. Both countries are highly dependent on the Indus
River Basin for water supply, which is governed primarily by the Indus Waters
Treaty set out in 1960. In February 2019, India had threatened to cut off water
supply to Pakistan, in response to the Kashmir military clash, [62] diverting water
to areas like Jammu, Kashmir and Punjab instead. The construction of dams
upstream would also result in flooding downstream if water was released too
quickly.[63]
Since the two countries share the resources of the Indus water basin, India and
Pakistan decided on a notable and influential treaty called the Indus Water
Treaty (IWT). The treaty is mediated by the World Bank and regulates the water
use and flow of the basin's multiple rivers by each country. The treaty has
survived three wars, but seen its share of bilateral strains. [64] Following high
tensions in 2019, the Indian Prime Minister threatened to restrict water flow to
Pakistan in the region – an act which Pakistan said it would consider an act of
war.[65]

Transboundary water conflicts and their effects on

the environment[edit]
Tigris and Euphrates Rivers[edit]
Since the 1960s,[66] there has been conflict revolving around water
in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. Turkey, throughout the years, has continuously
decided not to follow the 1987 agreement that ensured roughly 500 cubic
meters per second of water is streamed down the Tigris and Euphrates
Rivers to supply water for the Mesopotamian Marshes and millions of
individuals.[67] Turkey decided to start the Southeastern Anatolia Project or GAP,
which is to build 20 dams that could hold up to 120 billion cubic meters along
with nineteen hydroelectric electricity generators leaving millions of people and
wildlife living downstream that rely on both the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers with
no water.
Turkey and the GAP Project[edit]
The Tigris and Euphrates River GAP project, which consists of (1.7 million
hectares)[68] has exasperated the situation and has created irreversible and
future irreversible environmental damage not only to the surrounding countries
but to Turkey as well. The GAP project decreased water by 50% from
the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers to the surrounding downstream
countries, Syria and Iraq. The lack of downstream water has led to
many Kurds becoming homeless, increasing water salinity in
the Euphrates reaching 1000 PPM and preventing Iraq from returning to rich
organic soil used for agriculture. In addition, the lack of downstream water also
prevent natural drainage, including salts and pollution that the rivers naturally
got rid of, affecting the health of millions.[68]

Annual time lapse of water levels of the Mesopotamian Marshes throughout early February.

Effects on the Mesopotamian Marshes[edit]

The Mesopotamian Marshes, also known as the Iraqi Marshes, saw a
considerable decrease during the 1980-1988 war with Iran when Saddam
Hussein, the fifth president of Iraq, accused Arab inhabitants of treachery and
therefore used water as a weapon to push them out of the Marshes. [69] To get
thousands of people out of the area, the Iraq government drained 10%, which
used to cover 9,000 square kilometres (3,500 square miles) to 760 km2, and in
2005 only gained 40 percent of their original coverage. [68][69] The Third River is a
172 kilometres long project that started in 1992. It involved an additional
channel in capturing the downflow water from the Tigris River and moving it
across the marshes and the Euphrates River near Al-Qurna. The project forced
half a million marshland people to migrate, burnt down the surrounding towns,
and polluted the surrounding farmland and water, making the land inhabitable
for thousands of species and human life. [68]
Mosul and Haditha Reservoirs[edit]
Water levels at a reservoir upstream of Mosul Dam.

The conflict in Tigris and Euphrates Rivers has resulted in reservoirs decreasing

rapidly. In 1985 and 1986, the two biggest reservoirs, Mosul and Haditha,
situated in the Tigris and Euphrates, were built to provide hydropower and
downstream flow.[70] During the first Gulf War, in 1990 and 1991,[71] 3.3km2 of
surface area was lost per day in the Mosul reservoir falling from 372 to 346 km.
On January 25 and February 10, 1991, the reservoir continued to lose about 3.4
km2 per day of the lake surface, leading to a final surface area of 215 km2 and
a volume of 3.3 km3.[70] This was the same time in February 1991 when
multiple British bombers sent multiple missiles hitting bridges in southern and
western Iraq, killing more than 100 in each attack [72] and affecting water levels.
During the same time, between January 17 and February 10, 1991,
the Haditha reservoir, also situated in Iraq, lost an average of 2.5 km2 of lake
surface per day and, in three weeks, a total of 21%. In August 2014, ISIS, a
rebel group, captured the Mosul Dam, which Kurdish sources feared would be
used to flood downstream countries, causing thousands of deaths.
[73]
 The US sent over 130 air strikes to help recapture the dam from ISIS in
northern Iraq.[74] The US also sent airstrikes hitting the areas surrounding
the Haditha reservoir to stop ISIS from capturing another vital dam that is a
source for millions.[75] The conflict over the resource in the area caused both
the Mosul and Haditha reservoirs to lose surface area at a rate of 2.0km2 a day.
[70]

Other notable conflicts[edit]

 The earliest known example of an actual inter-state conflict over
water took place between 2500 and 2350 BC between
the Sumerian states of Lagash and Umma.[76]
 At a local level, a remarkable example is the 2000 Cochabamba
protests in Bolivia, depicted in the 2010 Spanish film Even the
Rain by Icíar Bollaín.
 Following Russia's annexation of Crimea, Ukraine blocked the North
Crimean Canal, which provided 85% of Crimea's drinking water.
[77]
 Vasily Stashuk, Ukraine's top irrigation official at the time, said it
would bring a humanitarian "catastrophe".[78]
 In late April 2021, a conflict over water escalated into the most
serious border clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan since
independence in 1991.[79]
 War over Water (Jordan river) - tensions between Israel and the Arab
League in late 1960s over water supply from Jordan river basin
  California Water Wars - were a series of conflicts between the city of
Los Angeles, farmers and ranchers in the Owens Valley of Eastern
California, and environmentalists
 Water wars in Florida - water crisis in Florida
 Tennessee–Georgia water dispute  - ongoing territorial dispute
 Tri-state water dispute - is a water use conflict between the states of
Georgia, Alabama, and Florida over the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa
River Basin

Research[edit]
Some research from the International Water Management Institute and Oregon
State University has found that water conflicts among nations are less likely
than is cooperation, with hundreds of treaties and agreements in place. Water
conflicts tend to arise as an outcome of other social issues. [80] Conversely,
the Pacific Institute has shown that while interstate (i.e., nation to nation) water
conflicts are increasingly less likely, there appears to be a growing risk of sub-
national conflicts among water users, regions, ethnic groups, and competing
economic interests. Data from the Water Conflict Chronology show these
intrastate conflicts to be a larger and growing component of all water disputes,
and that the traditional international mechanisms for addressing them, such as
bilateral or multilateral treaties, are not as effective. [81] Some analysts estimate
that due to an increase in human consumption of water resources, water
conflicts will become increasingly common in the near future. [82][83]
Naho Mirumachi and John Anthony Allan proposed the Transboundary Water
Interaction Nexus (TWIN) approach in 2007 as a two-dimensional method to
approaching water conflict and cooperation. [84] This model neglects the
conventional linear continuum of conflict and cooperation and instead sees the
two as coexisting and not mutually exclusive. They postulate that not all
cooperation is good, and not all conflict is bad. [85] The TWINS approach can also
serve as a useful final step after separate. analyses on cooperative methods
and conflict intensity measures.[86] The model is split into two parts—the
horizontal scale (measures cooperation intensity) and the vertical scale
(measures conflict intensity).