From a legal perspective, international water resources are subject to fundamental principles, most notably equitable and reasonable utilization, the obligation not to cause significant harm to riparian states, and cooperation and exchange of information regarding activities that may affect shared resources. These principles, a significant aspect of which is reflected in the law of international watercourses, provide a legal framework for assessing actions affecting shared basins. However, determining international responsibility for any water damage requires proving the act, its effects, and the causal relationship between them; relying on geopolitical concerns alone is not sufficient.
The issue becomes more complex when looking at the 1994 Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, whose sixth article and second annex were dedicated to regulating water rights and obligations between the two parties. These provisions are not limited to water distribution, but include obligations to cooperate, protect shared resources, and prevent harm to them. Therefore, the water obligations stipulated in the treaty remain in effect regardless of the level of political relations, and they may not be treated as arrangements subject to amendment by unilateral will outside the agreed-upon legal frameworks.
Here, a crucial legal distinction emerges between water rights established under the treaty and additional quantities that may be subject to subsequent, time-bound agreements. The non-renewal of an additional arrangement does not in itself constitute a breach of the original treaty obligations, but it reveals the sensitivity of relying on sources affected by the continuity of political understandings. Therefore, protecting water security is not limited to demanding respect for existing rights, but includes reducing the likelihood of essential supplies being exposed to regional fluctuations.
At the regional level, the stability of southern Syria represents a Jordanian water interest that goes beyond direct border considerations. Managing shared basins requires the existence of institutions capable of coordination, oversight, and data exchange, especially in areas experiencing security shifts. Hence, the importance of supporting Syria's sovereignty and the stability of its institutions, and strengthening Jordanian-Syrian water cooperation, emerges as two complementary elements in protecting shared resources and preventing them from becoming a source of a new regional dispute.
Conversely, these developments necessitate a reconsideration of the concept of Jordanian water independence. The National Water Carrier project for Red Sea desalination does not merely represent a response to increasing demand, but represents a strategic investment in the state's ability to manage its sovereign risks. The more the water sources that Jordan can produce and manage independently expand, the less sensitive its economy and society become to external variables, and its ability to protect its interests without being dependent on volatile political conditions is enhanced.
The deeper message in His Majesty’s speech lies in the necessity of transitioning from managing water scarcity to managing water security in its comprehensive sense, by combining legal rights, preventive diplomacy, and investment in infrastructure. Jordan does not seek to turn water into an arena of confrontation, but to ensure it remains a resource for life, stability, and regional cooperation, far from the possibilities of political exploitation or the effects resulting from conflicts.
His Majesty the King has placed water security in its correct position among the state's strategic priorities. The challenge today is to translate this position into an integrated national policy that protects existing water rights, anticipates regional risks, and establishes sustainable water independence. Protecting water is not just protecting a natural resource, but protecting Jordan's ability to make its sovereign decisions and ensuring the security of its future generations.
