Understanding the International Joint Commission: a comparative case study approach

Abstract

Why the interest in the Commission? Internationally, its reputation is one of the most successful among conflict management agencies. Using a case study approach, this research aims to understand and account for the Commission's effective performance in two policy areas. The cases are chosen to capture a range of variation. In 1977, the governments of Canada and the United States asked the IJC to investigate controlling extreme water levels in the case on Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses. With the high water levels of the Great Lakes during the 1970's, there was interest in diverting water out of the Basin for western economic development. In 1985, the IJC finally made its recommendations on the issues. In 1975, the governments referred questions concerning the transboundary implications of the Garrison Diversion Unit project to the Commission. This public works project was designed to divert water from the Missouri River Basin to the Souris and Red River Valleys in North Dakota for irrigation; however, interests in Manitoba were concerned about the harmful implications of inter-basin water transfers. This represented a classic western water project that benefitted farmers in North Dakota. In comparison with the Garrison Diversion case, the Great Lakes reference demonstrates the technical and political complexities generated by regulatory issues in managing boundary problems. The Garrison case shows the influence that domestic politics can have on binational relations. We find that issue areas do matter in the Commission's ability to bring the governments to the table. We find that studying the domestic setting in which the Commission operates reinforces our argument about the influence policy arenas have on binational policy processes and outcomes. We find that the Commission's study boards became arenas of policy conflict, and in the case of the Great Lakes, were unable to generate consensus on regulatory norms. In comparison, the IJC was more successful in building a clear domestic constituency with the Garrison case. Its lack of a clear political constituency in the Great Lakes case was a handicap in building public and governmental support for a more independent role in that issue area.