Review and Analysis of International Conventions and the Helmand Water Rights

Abstract

The dispute over the water rights of the Helmand River, as a long-standing challenge between Iran and Afghanistan, has gained more complex dimensions in light of recent climatic, political, and environmental developments. This article, focusing on international conventions—including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 1997 New York Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands—examines legal strategies to defend Iran’s water rights over the Helmand River. The findings indicate that Iran can, by invoking principles such as “common but differentiated responsibilities” (UNFCCC), “equitable and reasonable utilization” and “prevention of significant harm” (New York Convention), and the protection of the Hamoun Wetland ecosystem (Ramsar Convention), strengthen its legal position in international forums. The main challenges include Afghanistan’s non-membership in the New York Convention, the country’s domestic political developments, and the lack of strong enforcement mechanisms in international instruments. Nevertheless, solutions such as combining legal references, strengthening environmental diplomacy, referring the case to international arbitration bodies, and redefining the 1972 Agreement by integrating modern legal principles can contribute to resolving the dispute. This research emphasizes that defending the Helmand water rights not only requires the intelligent utilization of existing legal frameworks but also demands regional and international cooperation to create a sustainable model for managing transboundary water resources. The results of this study can serve as a model for resolving similar disputes in other international river basins worldwide.