Abstract
This paper analyzes how practices in water diplomacy, and in particular in international water negotiations, are gendered and with what effects. We conduct a comparative analysis of three intergovernmental decision-making forums on international rivers: the Nile Technical Advisory Committee, the Chu-Talas Water Commission, and the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine. These three cases demonstrate how gender is relational and creates situations in which gendered norms and values are strengthened, challenged, and changed, and sometimes used strategically to gain more power. In addition, two specific dynamics were observed: first, aligning with gendered stereotypes, confrontational practices in water negotiations are perceived as masculine and cooperative ones as feminine. Second, women’s participation in negotiations leads to both male and female negotiators adapting their behavior, resulting in a tendency towards less openly confrontational dynamics in more gender-balanced settings.
Introduction
Worldwide, there are more than 310 shared freshwater basins, meaning rivers, lakes, or aquifers shared by two or more countries. In these basins, riparian states must coordinate and collaborate on matters such as navigation, the quantity and quality of water flowing from one country to another, or the environmental, economic and social impacts of infrastructure like dams or vast irrigation schemes. Its necessity for life, together with its mobility and variability, differentiates it from other natural resources. In light of climate change impacts and experienced or expected water scarcity, policy makers, the media, as well as academics have been alarmed by the role of transboundary water resources as trigger, amplifier or cause for interstate hostilities or even violent interaction, resulting in narratives centered around potential “water wars.” This narrative is counterbalanced by policies and research that stress the cooperative potential of shared water resources and argue that cooperative events occur more often than conflicting ones (Wolf et al. 2003; Petersen-Perlman et al. 2017). It has also been pointed out that water conflict and water cooperation often happen simultaneously (Zeitoun & Warner 2006; Zeitoun & Mirumachi 2008). In this context, preventing or resolving water-related disputes between countries remains a necessity even in basins where agreements or other cooperative mechanisms have already been established.
The term “water diplomacy” has been established to refer to the political processes and practices aimed at preventing, mitigating, and resolving disputes over transboundary water resources and developing joint water governance arrangements, with negotiations over shared waters as a core element (Keskinen et al. 2021; Sehring et al. 2022). Such water negotiations take place at the intersection of two masculinized policy fields: diplomacy and water resources management. Both sectors have historically been dominated by men, which has shaped the dominant professional norms and practices, including perceptions of who is an expert and how such an expert should behave. In the water sector, expertise in, and power and authority over water is strongly connected with masculinity (Liebrand & Udas 2017; Rap & Oré 2017; Zwarteveen 2008; 2017 Shreshta et al. 2019;). At the transboundary level, a result is that gender is seldom discussed (Earle & Bazili 2013; Sehring et al. 2023a), and that women’s perspectives are often accounted for as water users and recipients, not as active contributors to decision making (De Silva et al. 2018). In terms of diplomacy, Aggestam and Towns (2018), Enloe (2014), and Neumann (2012) have demonstrated the historical dominance by men and its effects. While women have historically played important informal roles, in most countries it was not before the early to mid-20th century that women were allowed to be diplomats and only recently are their numbers increasing (Sluga & James 2016, Towns & Niklasson 2018).
The historical dominance of men in water, diplomacy, and negotiations has led to norms and values being shaped by men, which has particular effects, especially for those who do not adhere to the dominant values and norms. This observation gives rise to questions on how gender influences who has access to negotiations, how processes are designed, as well as how interactions at the negotiation table play out (Anderson & Golan 2023). Answers to these questions have mostly been explored through experimental studies. Most conclude that all-women’s groups are more collaborative internally than all-male groups, seemingly confirming gender stereotypes (Boyer et al. 2009; Ta-Johnson et al. 2022). However, questions can be asked about these dynamics, and we should refrain from generalizing outcomes of experimental studies.
In this article we use a practice theory-based approach to study the actual practices of international water negotiations and the gendered nature of these practices. By doing so, we aim to better understand if and how gender plays a role in how decisions are made, hence how women’s absence or presence in water diplomacy processes impacts its dynamics. For this purpose, we compare negotiations in three inter-governmental decision-making forums on shared water resources, including:
The Nile Technical Advisory Committee (Nile-tac) in North-eastern Africa
The Chu-Talas Water Commission (ctc) in Central Asia
The International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (icpr) in Western Europe
The Committee and Commissions are all examples of river basin organizations, which are institutions set up to govern transboundary waters (Schmeier et al. 2016). All three are institutionalized platforms with the power to adopt binding intergovernmental decisions on the use, allocation, or management of water resources shared among their member states. Men and women take part in negotiations in all three, albeit to different extents. These cases provide an opportunity to address research gaps identified by Anderson and Golan (2023) and Towns and Aggestam (2018) on gender, negotiations, and diplomacy. Through a comparison of gender and negotiations in different world regions, we are able to take the complexity of each setting into account and unravel how gendered negotiation practices are interwoven with context-specific historical, political, cultural, and socio-economic factors. At the same time, comparing the differences and similarities allows us to draw inferences in how far gender norms have impacts on water negotiations that are observable across different contexts.
We analyze the case studies applying Practice Theory (Schatzki 2001, 2012; Nicolini 2012, 2017), and base our methodology on lessons from International Practice Theory (Adler & Pouliot 2011; Bueger & Gadinger 2016). We add a feminist perspective to highlight the role of agency of individuals as well as societal norms and values (Aggestam & Towns 2019; Enloe 2014), to showcase how these norms and values create power-laden realities (Butler 2009), as well as to challenge these power relations with gender as an entry point (Spike Peterson 2004).
Gender, International Negotiations, Water, and Practice Theory
In this article we seek to explore if and how gender plays a role in how decisions are made, hence how women’s absence or presence in water diplomacy processes impacts their dynamics. We understand gender as a “situated social practice” (Poggio 2006: 225), which implies that gender is not something static, but a relational performance. Genderedness is the “advantage and disadvantage, exploitation and control, action and emotion, meaning and identity, [which is] patterned through and in terms of a distinction between male and female, masculine and feminine. Gender is not an addition to ongoing processes, conceived as gender neutral. Rather, it is an integral part of those processes, which cannot be properly understood without an analysis of gender” (Acker 1990: 146). Masculinity refers in this respect to the meanings, norms, and values associated with being identified as a male, and femininity to the meanings, norms, and values related to being identified as a female. Gender is thus about meaning and identity related to being identified or treated as a man or a woman, as well as not fitting into these generalizing categories. These meanings, norms and values differ across cultures, and shape power-laden social hierarchies (Butler 1990; Shields 2008; Goodrich et al. 2019) as “that what is called ‘common sense’ is, in reality, knowledge derived from experiences of men’s lives, usually privileged men” (Tickner, 2006: 25). This is also the case for water diplomacy and negotiations, which bring together gendered practices of diplomacy as well as water management (Sehring et al. 2023b).
Substantive research has been done on the genderedness of negotiations, and much empirical research relies on experimental studies. For example, Sell (1997) analyzes that gender especially does have influence when it is activated through interaction with other participants in the negotiation. When participants know each other’s gender, men seem to adopt more collaborative approaches when they are a minority and less collaborative approaches in a same-gender setting. Women adopt more collaborative approaches in a same-gender setting, but the impact of gender appears to be smaller on women than on men. Sell (1997: 263) hypothesizes that the lesser impact of gender on women may be explained due to women being less accepting of gender hierarchies than men as they benefit them less. Additionally, Archer (2004) seeks to explore the complexities of gendered behavior through a survey-experiment. The experiment shows that confrontational behavior plays out differently in practice than in experimental settings, as people will be less likely to act upon negative thoughts in the public space. Moreover, norms and values also influence how people display confrontational behavior, with women acting in more indirect ways than men, while people’s experiences of anger appear the same. Naurin et al. (2019) show through a survey experiment in the Council of the European Union that when female representatives behave stereotypically weak and vulnerable they may trigger a “chivalry reaction” among male representatives, increasing the likelihood of their agreeing to proposals. The likelihood is however impacted by the cultural background—diplomats from countries with low levels of gender equality are more likely to react in a supportive way. These studies show that it is necessary to go beyond counting heads, and that we need to deeply understand how gender norms and values influence the processes of negotiation in diverse contextual settings in order to facilitate more inclusive processes (McAuliff 2022). Beyond experiments, it is thus important to explore gendered interactions in case studies to bring into light the “insidious reasons for women’s exclusion” and the different impacts of gendered hierarchies (Anderson & Golan 2023: 3).
To analyze gendered interactions related to water negotiations we apply Practice Theory, which has been a proven approach to research international relations and diplomacy (Pouliot & Cornut 2015; Bueger & Gadinger 2018), as well as gender (Poggio 2006) and is therefore useful to study gender and negotiations in the context of international river basin organizations. For this study, we build on Schatzki (2001) who posits that Practice Theory starts with an understanding that “knowledge, meaning, human activity, science, power, language, social institutions, and human transformation” are rooted in practices (Schatzki 2001: 43). He defines practices as doings and sayings that are organized by common understandings, ends and tasks, and rules. Practices are relational, they are constellations of performances by multiple people (Nicolini 2012), and can be connected to a certain space and time or be spatially and temporally dispersed (Schatzki 2002; Nicolini 2017). They embody knowledge, norms and values, which are also subject to change over time (Schatzki 2011; Nicolini 2017). Analyzing practices enables an understanding of such changing knowledge, norms and values (Nicolini 2017). Through its approach towards ‘doings and sayings’ that embodies norms, values and knowledge, Practice Theory as defined by Schatzki and Nicolini is well-suited to analyze the genderedness of water negotiations.
We also draw on International Practice Theory, which has applied Practice Theory to the field of international relations and diplomacy to show that diplomatic interactions are shaped not only by strategic interests of governments, but also by the practices of the involved actors at various levels. This type of research focuses on those who prepare substantive inputs to meetings, conduct negotiations, or represent their country or agency in inter-state bodies (Adler & Pouliot 2011; Bueger & Gadinger 2018; Sending et al. 2015). In water diplomacy, these actors are mainly officials from the ministries responsible for water management and/or diplomats from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, and at times also representatives of international actors, Non-Governmental Organizations (ngo s), or specialists in water management. Their practices of water diplomacy take place in intergovernmental meetings at different levels; for example, in the bodies and working groups of river basin organizations, during official negotiations, in informal settings, or in the process of preparing these formal and informal meetings. In contrast to career diplomats, officials in water negotiations and in international water commissions are often not trained in international law or negotiation strategies. They master the rules of international politics through implicit learning, relying on their knowledge about the “usual procedures,” their own intuition, and assessment of a situation to achieve an acceptable result.
Methodology
Researching gender and practices, as well as gendered practices, comes with certain methodological challenges, especially in international settings. Gender and practices are situated performances that rely at least partly on unreflected norms and tacit knowledge. Interpretative and ethnographic methods, like participant observation, shadowing and qualitative interviews are usually considered best suited (Kronsell 2006; Chappell & Waylen 2013, Poggio 2006). International Practice Theory-based case studies confirm that it is possible to understand sayings and doings that happen behind closed doors, especially based on interviews (Adler & Pouliot 2011; Bueger & Gadinger 2016). We have conducted semi-structured interviews based on a joint interview guideline for all three case studies. In the interviews, we asked those who participate in or observe negotiations in the Strategy Group of the icpr, the Nile-tac, and the Chu-Talas Water Commission to describe negotiations and share their thoughts on how their gender, and the gender of others in the room, influenced interactions during preparations and between those present at the negotiation table. Interviews took place in person, online, or via phone, either in native languages of the interviewees (Dutch, Russian) or in English. Table 1 shows the list of interviewees, their gender and position, and the acronyms we have used for the interviews in this article. For the Nile and Rhine basins, we did not mark the nationality of the interviewees to ensure their anonymity.
The interviews were conducted between September 2019 and June 2020 with women and men who are (former) staff or members of working groups, or who have participated in interstate water negotiations as part of country delegations or experts to one of the three decision-making forums. For our research, we could rely on already established relations of the authors with the actors in the respective case studies to get access to conduct qualitative semi-structured interviews, and in one case additional participant observation. For the Chu-Talas basin, for example, the interviewing author has also worked for donor organizations and had participated in earlier meetings of the ctc as donor representative. The familiarity of the authors to the case provided access to actors with key experiences, and in some interviews supported deep reflexivity on how the genderedness of negotiations was perceived. On the other hand, we are mindful of how our positionality (Alcoff 2006), especially as women affiliated with Western European institutions, influenced the interviews. For example, some interviews were conducted by an Indian student, in the context of an MSc thesis. In these interviews, people used the background of the interviewer as comparison to their own situation, which gave space to reflect on issues that are otherwise not discussed.
Familiarity with the case and interviewees may have concealed some of these gendered dynamics. It exemplifies that professional and gendered practices are based on common sense and represent a status quo and oftentimes unquestioned behavior, which are challenging to research (Kronsell 2006; Chappell & Waylen 2013). It takes time to become self-aware of what a person thinks common sense is, and how it influences day to day activities and decisions. This relates to the interviewees but also to us as interviewers. When researching often unquestioned behavior, we run the risk of intrusion of our own biases and expectations (Bryman 2012). We have mitigated this by developing a two-staged coding system. The coding system was developed first for each case separately based on the content of the interviews. We then compared and merged the codes into one joint system, in which we took time to define each code to ensure a shared understanding and to identify and challenge possible biases. This allowed us to code and analyze case-specific aspects as well as have a comparable data set across all three cases. The interviews were then all coded using atlas.ti software.
Although we use the categories ‘male’ and ‘female,’ ‘men’ and ‘women,’ we do not subscribe to gender essentialism or binary thinking. We have chosen to focus on these two categories while acknowledging gender fluidity and the possibility that individuals may not fit in these cultural categories. We understand that there are other important factors of identity that have not been taken into account here, therefore this study has a limited focus on the intersectionality of various identities such as class, ethnicity, sexuality, ability, etc. and their impacts on who has access to decision-making in the three river basins (Crenshaw 1989; Collins 2015). However, by illustrating what it means to not fit within the status quo, we also aim to contribute to a debate that questions gender norms as well as other intersections of identity (Goodrich et al. 2019).
Overview of interviews per basin
| Chu-Talas Basin | |||
| Acronym | Interviewee | Gender | Date |
| 2kaz | Kazakh water expert and former member of the Chu-Talas Commission | Male | 19 September 2019 |
| 3kaz | Kazakh head of environmental ngo | Female | 20 September 2019 |
| 4kaz | Kazakh university professor | Female | 19 September 2019 |
| 5kaz | Kazakh water expert | Female | 19 September 2019 |
| 6int | International water expert | Female | 3 April 2019 |
| 7int | International water expert | Male | 3 April 2019 |
| 8kyr | Kyrgyz water expert and former member of the Chu-Talas Commission | Female | 20 December 2019 |
| 9kyr | Kyrgyz member of the Chu-Talas Commission | Female | 19 December 2019 |
| 10kyr | Kyrgyz water expert | Female | 18 December 2019 |
| 11kaz | Kazakh member of the Chu-Talas Commission | Female | 18 December 2019 |
| 12kyr | Kyrgyz member of the Chu-Talas Commission | Female | 20 December 2019 |
| 13kyr | Kyrgyz member of the Chu-Talas Commission | Female | 19 December 2019 |
| 14kaz | Kazakh member of the Chu-Talas Commission | Male | 18 December 2019 |
| 15kaz | Kazakh water expert | Male | 23 September 2019 |
| Nile basin | |||
| Acronym | Interviewee | Gender | Date |
| nb1 | National Representative for Negotiation team | Female | 11 February 2020 |
| nb2 | Water expert, Nile-TAC participant | Female | 22 January 2020 |
| nb3 | Nile-tac representative | Female | 27 August 2019 |
| nb4 | Former Nile-tac representative | Female | 26 August 2019 |
| nb5 | Former Nile-tac participant | Male | 24 March 2020 |
| nb6 | Former Nile-tac participant | Male | 23 April 2020 |
| nb7 | Nile-tac representative | Female | 23 April 2020 |
| nb8 | Nile-tac representative | Female | 18 March 2020 |
| nb9 | Nile-tac representative | Male | 15 June 2020 |
| Rhine basin4 | |||
| Acronym | Interviewee | Gender | Date |
| Rh1 | National Representative | Female | 10 January 2020 |
| Rh2 | National Representative | Female | December 2019 |
| Rh3 | National Representative, Working Group member | Male | 15-16 January 2020 |
| Rh4 | National Representative, Working Group member | Male | 15-16 January 2020 |
| Rh5 | National Representative | Male | 15-16 January 2020 |
| Rh6 | icpr Secretariat | Male | 12 December 2019 |
| Rh7 | icpr Secretariat | Male | 12 December 2019 |
| Rh8 | icpr Secretariat | Female | 13 December 2019 |
| Rh9 | National Representative | Female | 19 December 2019 |
| Rh10 | Former icpr Secretariat | Male | 29 April 2020 |
| Rh11 | National Representative | Male | 19 May 2020 |
Contextual Information: An Overview of the Cases
In this section we provide contextual information that is relevant to understanding gender and negotiations in the three case studies. As background information to the cases, and to showcase the main similarities and differences between them, Table 2 shows an overview of the member countries, the water cooperation agreement that provides legal and institutional frameworks, our assessment of the current status of the organizational culture, the political relations, and gender balance in the decision-making forums.
Overview of relevant contextual elements per case study
| ctc | Nile-tac | icpr | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year of establishment | 2006 | 1999 | 1950 |
| Member countries | Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic | Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Observer: Eritrea | Switzerland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and the European Commission |
| Water cooperation agreement | 2000 Agreement on Utilization of the Water Facilities of Interstate Use on the Chu and Talas rivers | None (Cooperative Framework Agreement not approved by all basin countries) | 1999 Convention for the Protection of the Rhine (follow up on earlier agreements, starting from 1950) |
| Organizational culture | Hierarchical-collaborative | Hierarchical | Collaborative |
| Political relations | Close and friendly | Tense between certain states with impacts on the whole basin | Close and friendly |
| Gender balance | Male chairs, Secretariat headed by women, about one third women in working groups | Women are a minority at minister level, increasing balance at Nile-TAC level, female chairs | Women are a majority at ministerial level, increasing at technical level |
The Chu-Talas Commission
The Chu-Talas basin is a relatively small basin in Central Asia, shared by Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic. As both countries were part of the Soviet Union, transboundary water management was determined through Soviet regulations reified in 1983. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Agreement on Utilization of the Water Facilities of Interstate Use on the Chu and Talas Rivers was signed in 2000 based on the arrangement of water allocation of 1983. With support of international donors, a commission was set up to implement the agreement, called the Commission of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic on the Use of Water Management Facilities of Intergovernmental Status on the Rivers Chu and Talas (Chu-Talas Commission, ctc). The mandate of the ctc includes maintaining and rehabilitating water facilities, ensuring budget to this and, and approving the allocation of water resources between Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.
Cooperation is facilitated by a shared language, Russian, as well as a strong network of jointly educated water experts that know each other personally and share similar opinions on how water should be managed (Sehring & Ibatullin 2021). An interviewee shares “We are like a big close-knit family… we are all professionals, everyone knows the importance of our work, especially the joint work” (11kaz).
Figure 1 depicts the structure of the Commission, which consists of six working groups that are coordinated by a Joint Secretariat that is led by Kazakh and Kyrgyz co-directors. Decisions are made in the Chu-Talas Commission, headed by Kazakh and Kyrgyz co-chairpersons. The chairpersons represent Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Agriculture and Kyrgyzstan’s State Agency for Water Resources, and have to date always been men. The two directors of the Secretariat have been women. In the working groups, women constitute about one-third of the delegates. The participation of women at these high-level positions seems to be an exception in the region where men are in the majority in general in the water sector, and specifically in high level positions (Musabaeva 2014).
Structure of the Chu-Talas Commission (own compilation)
Citation: International Negotiation 2025; 10.1163/15718069-bja10099
The Nile-Technical Advisory Committee
The Nile runs through eleven states: Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda. The basin has low intraregional trade, there is no common language, religion, or history, and the region experienced high political instability until the 1990s (Swain 2008; Waterbury 2008; Cascão 2012). Colonial legacies still have influence on geopolitics today. During the British occupation of Egypt from 1882 to 1954 it was ensured that the biggest water share was allocated to Egypt, mainly to maintain the cotton industry (Awulachew et al. 2012). In addition, not all basin states were signatories to the British-led agreements. These are some of the underlying causes for distrust and asymmetries in development and water utilization among upstream and downstream states of the basin (Cascão & Nicol 2016).
In 1999 the Nile Basin Initiative (nbi) was established with support of the World Bank, UNDP and other donors to promote cooperation and sustainable development across the river basin (Cascão 2012; Salman 2018). Prior to the establishment of the Nile Basin Initiative there was very little cooperation between the basin states. The NBI is an interim intergovernmental organization, intended to establish a Cooperative Framework Agreement (cfa) including a permanent joint institution. Currently, the nbi is the only basin-wide decision-making institution on Nile water resources and management (Salman 2018). The organization facilitates multilateral dialogue, information sharing, joint planning, management and development of the resources in the Nile basin. Only Eritrea has an observer status, while the other 10 basin states are members.
Figure 2 shows the structure of the nbi, including the place of the Nile-tac in this organization. The Nile Secretariat (Nile-sec) is the executive arm of the organization. The Nile Council of Ministers (Nile-com) is the highest decision-making body, which consists of ministers of water for each respective member state. The Nile Technical Advisory Committee (Nile-tac) is the advisory and supportive body to Nile-com, which maintains supervision over programs. It also facilitates interaction between the Nile-sec and the Nile-com (nbi n.d.). As this decision-making forum is central to the nbi, and as its members are more approachable in contrast to ministers of Nile-com, this body is the focus of our study.
Member states delegate two representatives to the Nile-tac (nbi n.d.). Some member states have recently started to include women in their delegations, but representation varies and the members of the Nile-tac are still mainly men. In 2023, the chair of the Committee is a man, but the two previous chairs (representing Kenya and Rwanda) were women.
Structure of the Nile Basin Initiative (own compilation)
Citation: International Negotiation 2025; 10.1163/15718069-bja10099
The International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine
The Rhine originates in Switzerland, and then flows through France, Germany and the Netherlands. Through groundwater the river is also connected to parts of Italy, Liechtenstein, Austria, Luxembourg and Belgium. The International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (icpr) against pollution was established by Switzerland, Germany, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands in 1950 (Ruchay 1995; Dieperink 2000). In 1999, the icpr members—now including the European Commission—signed an updated agreement, the Convention for the Protection of the Rhine, which currently forms the basis for the work of the icpr. A major environmental disaster in Switzerland in 1986 sparked close cooperation over the Rhine, resulting in joint programs for improving the water quality and ecological state of the river (Mielnik 2018; icpr 2020). The icpr was established in a context of growing cooperation between countries in Western Europe and increasing integration in the European Union (EU). Switzerland is the only non-EU member state. In effect, the joint standards and procedures set by the EU, such as through the European Water Framework Directive, have a positive influence on the cooperation within the icpr. Additionally, issues discussed today are less sensitive than in the early stages of the icpr, which also contributes to the friendly atmosphere (Rh6).
Figure 3 shows the structure of the icpr. Central is the Secretariat, which coordinates the four working groups and two expert groups, as well as prepares meetings of the Strategy group and Plenary Assembly. The working groups address practical matters, and representation of men and women differ per topic. At the Plenary Assembly level, strategic decisions are taken that could not be agreed on by the Strategy Group. At this level, women are currently in majority in the icpr. At the Rhine Ministerial Conference in February 2020, only two of the ten Heads of Delegations of the members, including the Executive Secretary, were male. The Strategy Group prepares decisions for the Plenary Assembly, also based on the work of the working groups. It is this body that we focus on in this research. Since 2005, more women started to be included in delegations to the Strategy Group, starting with delegations of the Netherlands and Germany, especially due to specific gender policies of the ministries and organizations in charge of nominating people to the icpr (Rh5, Rh7).
Structure of the icpr (own compilation)
Citation: International Negotiation 2025; 10.1163/15718069-bja10099
Confrontation and Collaboration: Gendered Negotiation Practices
The analysis of the descriptions and reflections on practices by the interviewees showed two specific dynamics related to the genderedness of negotiations. These are confrontational practices commonly connected to masculinity and men, and collaborative practices usually connected to femininity and women. In the following, we will present both of these sets, and describe how negotiation practices are gendered and with what effects in the context of the case studies. After that, we will zoom into the specific dynamic of changing gender balance and how this influences interactions between men and women in negotiations in the case studies.
Confrontational Practices
Confrontational practices in water negotiations include using an aggressive tone, being uncompromising, or walking out of negotiations, often associated with prioritizing one’s own interests. Experiences with and perceptions of confrontational practices in negotiations are clearly gendered in all three case studies. When interviewees in all three basins talked about harsh and uncompromising behavior, they usually linked it to men. In the case of the Nile-tac, interviewees stated for example “I could observe that the men were so harsh” (nb7), and “Men are sticking to the points, which sometimes they’re not even important, that’s why they’re not moving [forward in the negotiations]” (nb2). In the case of the Chu-Talas, an interviewee mentions: “And then there might even be some problems, men immediately start swearing, but women will be uncomfortable” (12kyr). In the case of the icpr, one person mentioned: “We call [this behavior] the ape guy: ‘If I shout harder, I will win’” (Rh9).
However, this behavior was not seen as only negative, and not only men are performing in this “masculine” way. We exemplify this with one example from the Rhine basin, in which one female interviewee explained how she thought that male behavior was more effective in negotiations and therefore made adjustments towards a generalized idea of what male behavior in negotiations is: “I even took acting lessons to learn to negotiate in a male fashion. Because, for example, what I learned was if you want to negotiate in a male fashion… you let the other one talk, you lower your voice, you don’t start to look for a compromise… I thought if I want to survive in this world, I have to learn another way of acting” (Rh1). Her explanation shows that she experiences a male norm of how negotiations are done in a successful way, and that it takes adaptation to this norm to indeed negotiate with success. She continues to reflect on how she sees confrontational behavior as a male trait, as well as that she embodies this herself: “I have characteristics which are quite male. Namely, when you try to hit me, I hit back” (Rh1).
Another example shows the complexities of gender. An interviewee makes the following statement to challenge the stereotype that men show more confrontational behavior: “We have some kind of tough women, sometimes tougher than the men” (Rh6). The quote gains importance when he explains his own gendered experience of working in the icpr. He himself has worked in a position that had challenged gendered norms before as the only man amongst women. The interviewee explicitly mentioned that this raised his awareness on what it means to be a man or a woman in a position that is generally thought to be more fitting for the opposite sex. By challenging these gendered ideas of what acceptable positions are for men or women, the gendered norms are simultaneously reinforced by using the other sex as reference for that specific position. Therefore, most of the examples of female officials who are described as being as tough as (or even tougher than) their male colleagues, do not (yet) challenge the perception of confrontational practices being perceived as masculine and stem from internalized gender stereotypes. One male interviewee from Central Asia, when asked about a female water diplomat who was known for her uncompromising attitude, simply said; “she is no good example” (15kaz).
Collaborative Practices
Collaborative practices in international water negotiations include integrating the needs and interests of others, seeking compromise, using informal and technical levels to find common understandings, avoiding open confrontation, and are often associated with the ability to reach workable solutions and create a trustful atmosphere.
Our interviewees shared ample experiences with collaborative practices, and usually linked this behavior to traits considered female. Several interviewees described women to be more constructive and compromise-seeking than men, like in the Nile-tac: “Women are patient, they can change the dynamics” (nb2). Although a male interviewee placed a side-note: “Women are more flexible, but that’s not always good. Because sometimes you need to stand your ground and be a little bit more hard” (nb5). In the Chu-Talas basin, one of the female members of a working group remarked: “We [women] always try to find some kind of compromise. For example, we are with women in this [working] group. We have a very good group. We are ourselves calmly working in this direction with Kazakhstan. It is imperative that women participate in such practical [work]” (13ky).
The collaborative attitude was often related to essentialist assumptions on the social role of women and linked to being a mother and having care duties. Some examples are: “I think it’s our nature… like we have maternal instincts in a sense, we wouldn’t want anything to be in a bad position, right? We want to compromise, we want to strategize, and we want everyone to be happy” (nb1). Or: “Because I think that for females the intrinsic… the motivation from inside is usually higher, and for males winning is important” (Rh1). Or: “We work more with our soul. We invest more emotionally, we are more responsible, empathize. I thought that I was the only one, it turns out all of them” (11kaz).
Interestingly, and differently from the other two case studies, in the Rhine basin collaborative practices were much less categorized in terms of masculine or feminine behavior as was done with confrontational practices. A potential explanation might be that in the Netherlands, Germany, and France, hiring policies in ministries promote a gender balance, normalizing equal numbers of men and women in their team (Rh6, Rh8, Rh 2, Rh11). It is important to note that even if the perception of practices as masculine or feminine might have changed or weakened, this does not directly equate to balanced gender hierarchies or more equal representation. Some delegations have not yet been led by a woman.
In all three case studies, the descriptions and observations of interactions within and between negotiation teams show strong gendered stereotypes: collaborative practices are connected to feminine traits, and openly confrontational practices to masculine traits. These are even reinforced when interviewees reflect on whether gender plays a role at all, by sharing examples of exceptions to gender stereotypes with women showcasing openly confrontational behavior. At the same time, our analysis shows the power of gender in shaping interactions in international water negotiations and why it is sometimes more effective to work with these gender hierarchies than to work against them, hence for women to adapt to ‘masculine’ negotiation styles.
The impact of a changed gender balance on practices of water negotiations
Changed settings, be it in terms of political developments or institutionalization of cooperation, might lead to practices being replaced or adapted. This is also the case when the gender balance in a water negotiation changes. Practices which have emerged in a mostly homosocial environment as the right or standard performance might be at odds with the intuitive “suitable” behavior when more women are sitting at the negotiation table.
In all our three case studies, international water negotiations were or still are male-dominated. In all three basins, there were or still are venues where negotiations take place only or mainly among male representatives. It was therefore possible for interviewees to compare their own experience of negotiations with more or less women participating. Despite the different contexts, there were very similar observations across the three cases.
Several (male as well as female) interviewees in all three basins noted that male water professionals employ less confrontational practices as soon as women are part of negotiations both at higher political level and in more technical working groups. They perceived the participation and presence of women as having a positive effect on the atmosphere in the meetings. An example from the Nile-tac shows: “People [are] acting differently when there is a woman, they wouldn’t be their true selves. They would respect people, they will try to behave in a certain way that wouldn’t disappoint a woman. And there are people who would be dismissive, but in general, I would say they will try to behave” (nb1).
A female member of the ctc shares: “The [effect of] participation of women in such commissions is, first, probably, tact: Men also try to behave, probably be diplomatic among themselves. Because, I also saw such situations when there were very controversial moments. Men do not hold back, but when there are more women participating, they all nevertheless, probably, think and try to somehow behave more diplomatic” (13kyr). Several interviewees linked these changes when women are attending negotiations to the social norm that you cannot swear in the presence of a woman (15kaz, 13kyr).
Two interviewees of the icpr also noted the impacts of the presence of women: “So there are discussions where I would not say people get a bit more rude, but very open. I think the presence of women helps to not let things escalate” (Rh9) and “I had it in the past, there would be explosive people. People were shouting in conferences. Not aggressively, but just to focus or emphasize interest. It is what men in the past used, like a gorilla… It changed because the world is changing, but also because of the influence of women” (Rh6).
The change of practices in mixed gender settings illustrates how this change can happen rapidly. It also shows the value of approaching practices as both processual and a constellation of performances by multiple people (Nicolini 2012, 2017). Gender is inherently social and interwoven in these practices and interactions, impacting the behavior of men and women.
It is important to note that the observed change is not a result of the (assumed) more collaborative attitudes and practices of women. Rather, men change their behavior in order to follow a social norm for less confrontational or aggressive behavior in the presence of women. It is thus not related to any characteristics of women, but to hegemonic ideas and common sense of appropriate practices in a given setting, which changes with the presence of women. We will elaborate on this point further in the discussion below.
The interviews from the Nile and Rhine cases showed how practices change over time, as they are relational. Once people with different gender norms and values joined the negotiation, for instance due to generational changes or gender quotas, the interactions in these negotiations changed as well. In the icpr, interviewees stressed the current friendly atmosphere in contrast to the past where negotiations were done only by male delegates: “I know the older system… I was 30 at the first conferences in the 90s, and there were all men with a tie and a suit and everybody spoke in a very mechanical way, reading the speech, and the atmosphere was cold and very, very formal” (Rh6). “They used very hard words in the discussions. They said to one another ‘you stupid person’… Being offensive to your opponent, this does not happen anymore” (Rh5). In the interviews, multiple reasons are mentioned for this change, including less sensitive topics to be discussed, a growing level of trust between the countries, the role of the EU Water Framework Directive that creates a joint set of regulations for the Rhine, and as shown in the previous sub-section, the presence of women in the negotiations. In the Nile basin, confrontational behavior is associated with an older generation of men, thus pointing towards change once a new generation of negotiators come in: “they don’t compromise at all… most negotiators in nbi, they are the old ones. So, they have their bibles. You know, they don’t want to change anything” (nb2). These quotes show that gender is not a stand-alone factor, and change in gendered practices is a result of changed gender norms as much as a changing context due to other societal and political developments. As we discussed in a separate analysis of the reasons for the (lack of) women’s participation in international water negotiations (Sehring et al. 2023c), in the ctc and the icpr, the increase of the number of women coincided with the decreased political relevance (Rhine) or economic status (Chu-Talas) of the water sector. Increased participation of women might therefore not only be a result of change in gender norms and policies but instead of higher institutionalization and decreased political importance. Similar dynamics might be at play when international water negotiations move away from masculine connotated confrontational practices to more cooperative ones; if collaboration and dialogue become more constitutive features of water diplomacy in a given basin, then more room for so-called feminine traits (and women) might emerge.
Discussion
The analysis of how gender impacts the practices of international water negotiations showed some striking similarities across the regions. Despite their different socio-cultural context and very different ways gendered performance plays out, there are similar ideas about what is considered masculine and feminine behavior across the basins. Collaborative and compromising approaches were usually associated with women, and only in the icpr with a younger generation of men. Confrontational behavior was generally perceived as masculine, and therefore more accepted to be practiced by men. When women used confrontational practices, they were thought to be exceptions and perceived to behave in masculine ways. In some instances, the behavior of women acting in openly confrontational ways was presented as a positive example of how gendered stereotypes did not apply. Yet inadvertently, by marking it as an exception and example of how women also could behave in masculine ways, it shows the existence and influence of gendered norms.
The perception that women would be more apt to use collaborative practices in negotiations has been mostly researched in experimental settings, as shown in the introduction. This argument therefore easily becomes essentialist and disconnected from the context the gendered performances take place in. This is exemplified by the so-called women and peace hypothesis, which is the stereotype of women being more peace-oriented than men. Some of our interviewees aligned with this perception. Instead of this, we rather see our findings aligning with and complementing the arguments of Maoz (2009) and Aharoni (2017) that it is this very stereotype and the subsequent expected, instead of factual, behavior that increases women’s ability for promoting peace. In line with Naurin et al. (2019), we could also observe that in a more patriarchal context the adaptation of men towards social norms of engaging with women was higher. Our results also confirm this relational aspect of gendered practices (Poggio 2006; Nicolini 2012). The analysis indicates that the presence of women changes the dynamics in formerly homosocial international water negotiations towards more cooperative practices. This is not (mainly) as a result of women’s gender-specific behavior, but because social norms expect men to change their behavior in the presence of women.
The cases also show how gendered norms and stereotypes create power-laden social hierarchies. These gender hierarchies are confirmed and strengthened, challenged and changed, and sometimes strategically used to gain more power, as for example is done by a woman who adopts a more openly confrontational negotiation style, which is deemed masculine in the context she works in. When people expect that women are more capable of promoting peace, in practice this may become reality as participants of a negotiation behave accordingly (Kray & Thompson 2005; Maoz 2009; Aharoni 2017, Naurin et al. 2019). Aharoni (2017) shows that this stereotype can be used as a strategy, but also warns that it can be a limitation when women (or men) do not show practices along these stereotypical expectations. An example from our case studies is how a woman consciously adopts an openly confrontational style of negotiating in order to be more effective, which affirms the intricacies of gendered interactions which inadvertently strengthened gendered norms. A note needs to be made that some of the strategies, or confrontational practices, operationalized by women may be more indirect or more hidden, as Archer (2004) has pointed out. They thus may be more difficult to observe, both by others and by the researchers.
Despite the similarities we found among the three cases, there were also noteworthy differences related to the specific cultural and political context. In the Rhine basin, and to a lesser extent in the Nile basin, stereotypical male-confrontational practices were considered as a thing of the past, associated with an older generation of men. In Central Asia in contrast, the male-dominated, harsh, and confrontational sphere of politics is today even more than before (in the Soviet Union) considered an inappropriate field for women (rfe/rl 2019).
In addition to reflecting on the main results of our analysis, we want to use this discussion to reflect on the applicability of Practice Theory to unpack the genderedness of water negotiations and the challenge of researching the status quo and hegemonic norms. The specific practice theory approach we have chosen has proven both applicable and helpful in several instances. The processual approach to practices links well with Acker’s (1990) definition of genderedness that emphasizes how it is an integral part of any process that shapes advantage and disadvantage, exploitation and control, action and emotion, meaning and identity. Approaching practices as the smallest unit of analysis, being the root for “knowledge, meaning, human activity, science, power, language, social institutions and human transformation” (Schatzki 2001: 43), has helped to unpack how gendered common understandings, gendered ends and tasks, and gendered rules shape negotiations.
We have explored how hegemonic norms of masculinity and femininity shape and are shaped by negotiation practices. In our research, we have noticed how challenging it is to research hegemonic norms. In most interviews, it took time for participants to become explicit about the role of gender, sometimes leading to contradictory statements. For example, some indicated that gender does not play a role, and then gave examples about the differences between feminine and masculine practices, oftentimes explicitly related to being male and female. This also corresponds with findings from research on gender and diplomacy, where Towns and Niklasson (2014) had similar experiences when they conducted interviews with diplomats in Stockholm. They were told that “women face few limits as women in diplomacy,” yet their research shows that gender does have a clear influence on who is selected as a diplomat (Towns & Niklasson 2014: 522).
In this research we focused on gendered norms, values, and stereotypes and less on other factors like class, which also influence practices and require us to devote attention to the intersection of gender with other social identities, and how this influences interactions and power dynamics (Goodrich et al. 2019). Being open about other social identities also raises implicit questions about a broad group of people, including those who feel they fit more with another gender, or those who do wish to adhere to these gender norms. We realize that more research is needed to analyze the intricacies of intersectionality, gender, and negotiations in the case studies. However, we hope that by showing the construction of what is seen as feminine and masculine we also contribute to the discussion on what “not fitting in the norm” in other aspects means for those practicing, or those who would like to practice, water diplomacy and negotiations.
Conclusion
We applied Practice Theory to explore how gender influences negotiations over transboundary waters in three international decision-making forums, namely the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine in the Rhine basin, the Nile-Technical Advisory Committee in the Nile basin, and the Chu-Talas Commission in the Chu-Talas basin. By analyzing the gendered practices of water diplomacy in three cases, our research shows similarities in negotiation practices despite their different socio-cultural contexts. Many interviewees related collaborative practices with women and femininity. We defined collaborative practices as integrating the needs and interests of others, seeking compromise, using informal and technical levels to find common understandings, avoiding open confrontation, often associated with the ability to reach workable solutions and create a trustful atmosphere. Confrontational practices were oftentimes associated with men or masculinity. We defined confrontational practices as using an aggressive tone, being uncompromising, or walking out of negotiations, often associated with prioritizing one’s own interests. Especially in situations where both women and men participated in negotiations, the influence of gender norms became visible. Notably, men were described as changing practices from more outright confrontation including speaking directly and loudly to more collaborative practices including avoiding harsh words and loud tones. This is in line with insights from experimental negotiation research, and confirms how gendered norms, values, and stereotypes influence interactions in water negotiations, although there are distinct differences of how they gain power and can be challenged in each of the case studies.
The collaborative/confrontational dichotomy, or the caring/competitive dichotomy, is clearly visible in practices and perceptions of people who negotiate over transboundary waters in the three case studies. As these ideas are so pervasive, we conclude that increasing the participation of women can be an important contribution to changing practices towards more constructive international water negotiations. Yet this alone is not enough to contribute to gender equality in diplomatic processes. As practices and their underlying normative dimensions are not static, there is space to move to more inclusive water diplomacy—but only if we are aware of them and ready to challenge them.
Notes
Rozemarijn ter Horst has worked as a lecturer and PhD researcher at the Water Resources Management group at Wageningen University since October 2020. Her work focuses on everyday practices of those who do and engage with transboundary water governance, including diplomats, policy makers, scientists, consultants, and donors. Her PhD project concerns how water modeling shapes transboundary conflict and cooperation. Before her work with Wageningen University, Rozemarijn worked at ihe Delft on water diplomacy, and remains affiliated as Guest Researcher Transboundary Water Governance.
Jenniver Sehring is an Associate Professor of Water Governance and Diplomacy at ihe Delft Institute for Water Education. Prior to that, she worked in academia and for different organizations engaged in supporting water cooperation, including the Council of the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (osce).
Alexandra Said is serving as the Country Engagement Coordinator for the nbsap Accelerator Partnership at United Nations Environment Programme in Nairobi, Kenya. Alexandra has focused her career and academic interests on environmental governance and gender equality. She has several years of experience exploring the dynamics and interlinkages of women’s vital role in environmental governance with peace and security. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations.
Interviews were conducted by the authors and one master student of <<Anonymized>>.
References
Adler, E. and V. Pouliot (editors) (2011). International Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Aggestam, K. and A. Towns (2019) “The Gender Turn in Diplomacy: A New Research Agenda”, International Feminist Journal of Politics 21, 1: 9-28.
Aharoni, S.B. (2017). “Who Needs the Women and Peace Hypothesis? Rethinking Modes of Inquiry on Gender and Conflict in Israel/Palestine.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 19, 3: 311-326.
Alcoff Martin, Linda (2006) Visible Identities: Race, Gender and the Self. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, M.J. and G. Golan (2023). “Women and Peace Negotiations: Looking Forward, Looking Back.” International Negotiation: A Journal of Theory and Practice 28, 2: 1-19.
Archer, John (2004). “Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-world Settings: A Meta-analytic Review.” Review of general Psychology 8, 4: 291-322.
Awulachew, S.B., V. Smakhtin, D. Molden and D. Peden (2012). “Introduction,” in S.B. Awulachew, V. Smakhtin, D. Molden and D. Peden, editors, The Nile River Basin: Water, Agriculture, Governance and Livelihoods. New York and London: Routledge.
Bryman, Alan (2012). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boyer, M.A., B. Urlacher, N.F. Hudson, A. Niv-Solomon, L.L. Janik, M.J. Butler, S.W. Brown and A. Ioannou (2009). “Gender and Negotiation: Some Experimental Findings from an International Negotiation Simulation.” International Studies Quarterly 53, 1: 23–47.
Bueger, C. and F. Gadinger (2016). “International Practice Theories,” in M. Jonas, L. Lassnigg, B. Littig and A. Wroblewski, editors, Praxeological Political Analysis. New York and London: Routledge.
Bueger, C. and F. Gadinger (2018). International Practice Theory. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Butler, Judith (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York and London: Routledge.
Cascão, A.E. (2012). “Nile Water Governance,” in S.B. Awulachew, V. Smakhtin, D. Molden and D. Peden, editors, The Nile River Basin: Water, Agriculture, Governance and Livelihoods. New York: Routledge.
Cascão, A.E. and Nicol, A. (2016). “GERD: New Norms of Cooperation in the Nile Basin?” Water International 41, 4: 550-573.
Chappell, Louise (2006). “Comparing Political Institutions: Revealing the Gendered Logic of Appropriateness.” Politics and Gender 2, 2: 223.
Chappell, L. and G. Waylen (2013). “Gender and the Hidden Life of Institutions.” Public Administration 91, 3: 599-615.
Collins, Patricia H. (2015). “Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemmas.” Annual Review of Sociology 41: 1–20.
Corredor, Elizabeth. S. (2022). “Feminist Action at the Negotiation Table: An Exploration Inside the 2010–2016 Colombian Peace Talks.” International Negotiation 1: 1-24.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé (1989). “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 140: 139–167.
De Silva, L., J.C. Veilleux and M.J. Neal (2018). “The Role of Women in Transboundary Water Dispute Resolution,” in C. Fröhlich, G. Gioli, R. Cremades, H. Myrttinen, editors, Water Security Across the Gender Divide. Water Security in a New World. Springer, Cham.
DeStefano, L., J.D. Petersen-Perlman, E.A. Sproles, J. Eynard and A.T. Wolf (2017). “Assessment of Transboundary River Basins for Potential Hydro-political Tensions.” Global Environmental Change 45: 35-46.
Dieperink, C. (2000). “Successful International Cooperation in the Rhine Catchment Area.” Water International 25, 3: 347-355.
Due Billing, Y. and M. Alvesson (2000). “Questioning the Notion of Feminine Leadership: A Critical Perspective on the Gender Labelling of Leadership.” Gender, Work & Organization 7, 3: 144-157.
Earle, A. and S. Bazilli (2013). “A Gendered Critique of Transboundary Water Management.” Feminist Review 103: 99-119.
Enloe, C. (2014). Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International politics. Oakland: University of California Press.
Goodrich, C.G., P.B. Udas and H. Larrington-Spencer (2019). “Conceptualizing Gendered Vulnerability to Climate Change in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: Contextual Conditions and Drivers of Change.” Environmental Development 31: 9-18.
icpr. (2020). 16th Rhine Ministerial Conference Communiqué. Accessed 22 April 2020: https://www.iksr.org/fileadmin/user_upload/DKDM/Dokumente/Kommuniques/EN/com_En_communiqu%C3%A9_EN.pdf.
Keskinen, M., E. Salminen and J. Haapala (2021). “Water Diplomacy Paths – an Approach to Recognise Water Diplomacy Actions in Shared Waters.” Journal of Hydrology 602: 126737.
Kray, L.J. and L. Thompson (2005). “Gender Stereotypes and Negotiation Performance: An Examination of Theory and Practice.” Research in Organizational Behaviour: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews 26: 103-182.
Kronsell, A. (2006). “Methods for Studying Silences: Gender Analysis in Institutions of Hegemonic Masculinity,” in B.A. Ackerly, M. Stern and J. True, editors, Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liebrand, J. and P.B. Udas (2017) “Becoming an Engineer or a Lady Engineer: Exploring Professional Performance and Masculinity in Nepal’s Department of Irrigation.” Engineering Studies 9, 2: 120-139.
Maoz, I. (2009). “The Women and Peace Hypothesis? The Effect of Opponent Negotiators’ Gender on the Evaluation of Compromise Solutions in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” International Negotiation 14, 3: 519-536.
March, J.G. and J.P. Olsen, J.P. (2013) “The Logic of Appropriateness,” in R.E. Goodin, editor, The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mattur, R. (2020). “Understanding women’s participation in the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine through gendered substructures.” MSc thesis, IHE Delft.
Mattur, R. and R.H. ter Horst (2023) “Assessing Transboundary Water Governance in the Rhine Basin through a Gender Lens: the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine,” in J. Sehring, R.H. ter Horst, R.H., M. Zwarteveen, editors, Gender Dynamics in Transboundary Water Governance: Feminist Perspectives on Water Conflict and Cooperation. London: Routledge.
McAuliff, Alexandra K. (2022). “Peace Negotiations as Sites of Gendered Power Hierarchies.” International Negotiation 1: 1-25.
Mielnik, B. (2018). “Developments in the International Protection of the River Rhine.” Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration and Economics 8, 2: 395-404.
Musabaeva, K.A. (2014). “Gendernye aspekty upravlenija vodnymi resursami v Kyrgyzkoj Respublike.” Izvestija BUZov Kyrgyzstana 3: 177-180.
Naurin, D., E. Naurin and A. Alexander (2019). “Gender Stereotyping and Chivalry in International Negotiations: A Survey Experiment in the Council of the European Union.” International Organization 73, 2: 469-488.
nbi. (n.d). “Nile Basin Initiative.” Accessed April 9, 2021: https://nilebasin.org/.
Neumann, I.B. (2012). At home with the diplomats: Inside a European foreign ministry. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nicolini, D. (2017). “Practice theory as a package of theory, method and vocabulary: Affordances and limitations.” Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories, 19-34.
Niklasson, B. and A.E. Towns (2022). “Introduction: Approaching Gender and Ministries of Foreign Affairs.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 17, 3: 339-369.
Petersen-Perlman, J.D., J.C. Veilleux and A.T. Wolf (2017). “International Water Conflict and Cooperation: Challenges and Opportunities.” Water International, 42, 2: 105-120.
Poggio, Barbara (2006). “Outline of a Theory of Gender Practices.” Gender Work and Organization, 13, 3: 225.
Pouliot, Vincent (2008). “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities.” International organization: 257-288.
Rap, E. and M.T. Oré (2017). “Engineering masculinities: How higher education genders the water profession in Peru.” Engineering Studies 9, 2: 95-119.
rfe/rl (2019). Majlis Podcast: The Role Of Women In Central Asian Governments. Accessed April 9, 2021: https://www.rferl.org/a/majlis-podcast-the-role-of-women-in-central-asian-governments/30214285.html.
Ruchay, D. (1995). “Living with Water: Rhine River Basin Management.” Water Science and Technology 31, 8: 27-32.
Sadoff, C.W. and D. Grey (2002). “Beyond the River: the Benefits of Cooperation on International Rivers.” Water Policy 4, 5: 389-403.
Salman, Salman (2018). “The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement: Disentangling the Gordian Knot,” in Z. Yihdego, A Rieu-Clarke and A.E. Cascão, editors, The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and the Nile Basin: Implications for transboundary water cooperation. London: Routledge.
Schatzki, Theodore (2001). “Practice Mind-ed Orders,” in T. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina and E. Von Savigny, editors, The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.
Schatzki, Theodore (2002). The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Exploration of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Schatzki, Theodore (2012). “A Primer on Practices,” in J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings and F. Trede, editors, Practice-based Education: Perspectives and Strategies. Rotterdam: Sense.
Schmeier, S., A.K. Gerlak and S. Blumstein (2016). “Clearing the Muddy Waters of Shared Watercourses Governance: Conceptualizing International River Basin Organizations.” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16: 597-619.
Sehring, J. and S. Ibatullin (2021). “Prolonging or Resolving Water Conflicts in Central Asia? The International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea,” in S. Schmeier and A. Kittikhoun, editors, River Basin Organizations in Water Diplomacy. London: Routledge.
Sehring, J., R.H. ter Horst and M. Zwarteveen (2023a). Gender Dynamics in Transboundary Water Governance: Feminist Perspectives on Water Conflict and Cooperation. London: Routledge.
Sehring, J., R.H. ter Horst and M. Zwarteveen (2023b) “(En-) Gendering Water Diplomacy,” in J. Sehring, R.H. ter Horst, M. Zwarteveen, editors, Gender Dynamics in Transboundary Water Governance: Feminist Perspectives on Water Conflict and Cooperation. London: Routledge.
Sehring, J., R.H. ter Horst and A. Said (2023c) “Water Diplomacy: A Man’s World?” Journal of Hydrology X.
Sell, Jane (1997). “Gender, Strategies, and Contributions to Public Goods.” Social Psychology Quarterly: 252-265.
Sending, O.J., V. Pouliot and I.B. Neumann (2015). “Introduction,” in O.J. Sending, V. Pouliot and I.B. Neumann, editors, Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shields, Stephanie A. (2008). “Gender: An Intersectionality Perspective” Sex Roles, 59, 5: 301-311.
Sluga, G. and C. James (editors) (2016) Women, Diplomacy and International Politics since 1500. London: Routledge.
Shrestha, G., D. Joshi and F. Clement (2019). “Masculinities and Hydropower in India: A Feminist Political Ecology Perspective.” International Journal of the Commons 13, 1: 130–152.
Spike Peterson, V. (2004) “Feminist Theories within, Invisible to, and beyond IR.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10, 2: 35-46.
Suhardiman, D., M. Giordano and F. Molle (2012). “Scalar Dsconnect: The Logic of Transboundary Water Governance in the Mekong.” Society & Natural Resources 25, 6: 572-586.
Swain, Ashok (2008). “Mission not yet Accomplished: Managing Water Resources in the Nile River basin.” Journal of International Affairs: 201-214.
Ta-Johnson, V.P., E. Keels and A.B. Bayram (2022). “How Women Promote Peace: Gender Composition, Duration, and Frames in Conflict Resolution.” International Interactions 48, 6: 1089–1120.
Tickner, J. Ann (2006). “Feminism meets International Relations: some methodological issues,” in B.A. Ackerly, M. Stern and J. True, editors, Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Towns, A.E. and K. Aggestam (editors) (2018). Gendering Diplomacy and International Negotiation. New York: Springer.
Towns, A. and B. Niklasson (2017). “Gender, International Status, and Ambassador Appointments.” Foreign Policy Analysis 13, 3: 521-540.
Waterbury, John (2008). The Nile Basin: National Determinants of Collective Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wolf, A.T., S.B. Yoffe and M. Giordano (2003). “International Waters: Identifying Basins at Risk.” Water Policy, 5, 1: 29–60.
Zeitoun, M. and N. Mirumachi (2008). “Transboundary Water Interaction I: Reconsidering Conflict and Cooperation.” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8, 4: 297–316.
Zeitoun, M. and J. Warner (2006). “Hydro-hegemony – A Framework for Analysis of Trans-Boundary Water conflicts.” Water policy 8, 5: 435-460.
Zwarteveen, Margreet (2008). “Men, Masculinities and Water Powers in Irrigation.” Water Alternatives 1, 1: 111-130.
Zwarteveen, Margreet (2017). “Hydrocracies, Engineers and Power: Questioning Masculinities in Water.” Engineering Studies 9, 2: 78-94.
