India is a large country with 29 states as constituents in its federal structure. The large and growing population imposes great pressure on available natural resources. Disputes arising out of contested river water entitlements between states are common and often intractable. Laws conceived for settling such disputes were created for a particular socio-political environment characterized by strong Centre and relatively non-assertive states. The paper argues that this political configuration has changed dramatically and in turn has reduced the efficacy of the existing statutory mechanisms. A new paradigm for dispute resolution is required. The existing institutional mechanism and its political environment are examined and the structural changes identified. A set of reforms in the dispute resolution mechanism is proposed, which would reduce the friction between the statutory mechanism and its operational environment.

The humanitarian system has grown organically over the course of a generation to become a complex system bound by a common primary mandate. Its guiding principles provide it with a unique identity and separate humanitarian actors from other aid-related stakeholders. However, all of the evidence suggests that humanitarian actors will extend their reach and engage in new and unprecedented ways with an expanded mandate in years to come. Now, more than ever, they are challenged to retain the moral high ground and to put disaster-affected people at the centre of humanitarian action. Consequently, this paper proposes that the humanitarian system introduce a new principle: humanitarian subsidiarity. It moves the conception of subsidiarity beyond meanings ascribed by the Catholic Church and the European Union and links it instead to the attributes of agency, accountability, and trust to find accommodation with the core humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence.

Attempts to consolidate humanitarian actors into a humanitarian system are occurring alongside efforts to generate greater coherence between humanitarian action, development and peace‐building. Whether a strengthened humanitarian system can adhere to the humanitarian principles while engaging in post‐conflict societal reconstruction is unclear. This would require humanitarian action to address the victimhood mentality when dealing with affected populations and to seek out capacities as well as needs. In so doing the inherent political nature of humanitarian action and the manner in which it is prone to instrumentalization needs to be recognized. This would assist in generating the sensitivity required in order to ensure that humanitarian action would ultimately support rather than undermine reconciliation and the building of democratic institutions.

No abstract

No abstract