Wathiq Al-Saadoon / Researcher and Academic
Amidst the rapid climate changes and recurrent drought waves the world is currently witnessing, transboundary water issues across various continents are no longer merely topics discussed in academic publications and forums as a form of intellectual foresight for potential future crises. Instead, they have become genuine existential challenges threatening the social, economic, and security stability of riparian states sharing international rivers.
Although international laws exist to regulate shared international rivers, they have not proven sufficiently capable of enforcing a fair and equitable sharing of water between upstream and downstream (passage) countries. Most upstream nations do not feel a strict binding force from these laws. This reality compels riparian states, particularly downstream ones, to resort to bilateral or regional agreements and understandings with upstream countries to avoid the prejudice of their water rights and prevent a slide into conflict. This is achieved by anchoring relations on common interests and improving mutual relations. It is not productive to view these policies merely as pressures exerted by upstream countries, but rather to recognize the importance of downstream countries’ ability to formulate diplomatic and economic plans that make the sufficiency of their water resources a vital and direct interest for the upstream countries themselves.
On November 2, 2025, Baghdad witnessed the signing ceremony between the Foreign Ministers of Iraq and Turkey regarding the executive mechanism for the water cooperation agreement between the two countries. The agreement included new elements and visions alongside the demand for equitable sharing of transboundary water. Notably, it invites Turkey to contribute to improving water resource management in Iraq through investment projects implemented by Turkish companies to develop infrastructure for irrigation systems, dams, and water treatment plants. Furthermore, a percentage of Iraqi oil revenues exported via Turkish ports would be allocated to settle the dues of these companies.
These new contents represent a remarkable step in the trajectory of this chronic problem between the two countries. It may contribute to shifting the issue from a framework of disputes, tension, and mutual accusations to a cooperative path based on linking water sharing with investment cooperation in energy, irrigation infrastructure development, and economic growth. Thus, ensuring Iraq receives its water rights from Turkey, and the continued export of its oil through Turkish ports, will become a significant economic interest for Turkey as well, not just for Iraq.
Assessments of the new agreement have varied. Proponents see it as a new pattern of realistic engagement with a decades-old issue, entailing practical solutions that achieve a mutual benefit (win-win). Conversely, opponents view it as a prelude to Turkish control over Iraqi water resource management and a mortgaging of Iraqi oil revenues exported via Turkey in exchange for water inflow—termed the “Oil for Water” equation. A third group believes it does not rise to the level of a firm treaty but is limited to preliminary understandings lacking real binding force. The actual test of this agreement’s seriousness and importance remains contingent upon transforming its principles and clauses into tangible practical steps on the ground, away from procrastination or negligence.
The issue of water sharing between Turkey and Iraq has been exhaustively studied and debated within political, economic, and technical frameworks. However, it still requires an approach from the perspective of International Relations (IR) principles. These principles can reinforce Iraq’s rights and place Turkey before additional obligations towards downstream countries on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. IR principles often constitute an ethical regulator for relations between upstream and downstream states, especially when international laws or bilateral agreements fail to organize this relationship fairly and sustainably.
International relations principles can be classified into two types: Traditional principles, such as sovereignty, respect for borders and territorial integrity, non-intervention, adherence to international agreements, equality between states, and peaceful dispute resolution; and Modern principles resulting from contemporary international system interactions, such as common interests, international cooperation, human rights, and sustainable development. This article aims to discuss the Iraq-Turkey water agreement in light of three key principles directly relevant to contemporary international relations: Common Interests, International Cooperation, and Human Rights Protection.
The Iraq-Turkey Water Agreement and the Concept of Common Interests
Since the first quarter of the 20th century, the field of International Relations has witnessed continuous intellectual development, represented by the multiplicity of schools and theories seeking to describe, explain, and understand international phenomena within varying cognitive frameworks. Among the most prominent current theories are: Realism, which views the international system as an arena of conflict and prioritizes state security and survival; Liberalism, which believes peace and prosperity can be achieved through cooperation, law, and economic interdependence; and Constructivism, which posits that state interests are socially constructed through interactions and can change over time.
Despite the broad criticisms directed at Realism for its narrow focus on state interests, the mutual interests proposed by the recent water cooperation agreement can be considered, even from a Realist perspective, as direct Turkish national interests. This agreement offers significant economic opportunities for Turkey through investment in Iraq’s energy, irrigation, and agriculture sectors. Furthermore, exacerbating the water crisis in Iraq negatively impacts Turkey’s image in Iraqi public opinion and weakens the effectiveness of its soft power. Additionally, water security is a prerequisite for sustainable economic development in Iraq; continued scarcity reinforces the rentier nature of the Iraqi economy, exacerbating unemployment and the spread of non-state armed groups—threats that indirectly jeopardize Turkey’s own national security.
From a Liberal perspective, the agreement opens broad horizons for enhancing economic cooperation. Turkey is an industrial and commercial hub and a strategic energy corridor, while water availability is existential for any economic activity in Iraq. Activating the agreement would mitigate Iraq’s water crisis, enabling economic rise and making it a promising market for Turkish products and investments.
Within the Constructivist framework, Turkish society cannot be separated from its regional environment. It is difficult to conceive of permanent Turkish societal acceptance of internal water abundance contrasted with acute humanitarian suffering in Iraq, especially given the historical and cultural ties between the two societies.
The Iraq-Turkey Water Agreement and the Principle of International Cooperation
Regardless of theoretical differences, contemporary challenges—particularly climate change—have made international cooperation indispensable. The water crisis should be viewed as a result of climate change and a transboundary natural disaster requiring close coordination. Clauses related to exchanging hydrological and environmental data and holding emergency meetings during low levels or environmental disasters gain special importance here. Turkey’s participation in modernizing Iraq’s water infrastructure represents a practical opportunity to transform cooperation from theory into practice.
The Iraq-Turkey Water Agreement and the Principle of Human Rights Protection
Bitter experiences post-WWII established human rights as a pillar of international relations. Recent international legislation includes the right to water as a fundamental human right. The water sharing issue thus acquires a critical humanitarian dimension, as the groups most affected in Iraq are farmers and residents of southern governorates, particularly Basra. Turkey, as an upstream state, is expected to consider this humanitarian dimension. Having shown commitment to humanitarian concerns in crises like the 2022 Istanbul Grain Deal, Iraqis look forward to a Turkish stance that summons humanitarian considerations alongside political and economic interests.
Conclusion
The recent water agreement represents a qualitative shift in approaching one of the most complex issues in bilateral relations. It goes beyond demanding equitable sharing to proposing a broader framework for cooperation in resource management and development. Its success depends on the seriousness of both parties in implementation and adopting a comprehensive approach that balances economic/technical considerations with ethical/humanitarian obligations. Treating water solely as a commercial commodity voids the issue of its humanitarian dimension, whereas treating it as a fundamental human right aligns with modern international relations principles and enhances stability.