The right to water is a human right which essentially means, in this case, that Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are stuck at least providing water to make sure that children don't die of thirst. Yeah, the Catch that you note is Exceedingly real. The international case law precedents, for the most part, are between countries where the word ‘desert’ doesn't apply.

In the future legal conflict that Tajikistan is looking at for water rights, careful documentation of every non-humanitarian slight by Uzbekistan in regard to energy is required. Then, those state lawyers of Tajikistan need a careful documentation of all the largesse that Tajikistan has displayed. It will have a tendency to legitimize whatever action Tajikistan plans to take later in order to keep its own citizens from being in thirst, in the cold, or economically stagnant. In the case of a legal threat, the answer will be something like this:
a. of course TAjikistan does not want Uzbekistan to suffer.
b. of course we plan to provide water.
c. of course Uzbekistan has not considered the humanitarian needs of our citizens. . . (that super long list of Uzbekistan's energy/humanitarian violations)
d. but of course we don't want the people to suffer.

Then Tajikistan can start squabbling over how much water Uzbekistan can plan on receiving. The case law precedents have to be shown not to apply. and in such a case, it would be very helpful to get the support of various African states that are upstream states in riverine systems in that continent, because they are in the same position as Tajikistan–unable to develop because it hurts others downstream.

Thanks for writing in.
Bonnie

Here is the catch22:
Uzbekistan does not want to sell its energy to Tajikistan. Tajikistan has to develop its own capacity to produce it. The only economically viable way it could do it is by building hydro power plants. That gives Tajikistan greater control over water resources which in turn makes the dictator next door nervious.

UN rights to water also favors the status quo… What if Tajikistan wanted to develop at a higher rate and need more energy? Would we still be required to support a state downstream at our own expense? How binding are these UN Rights to Water? Is Tajikistan party to these resolutions? How likely is UN to rule in favor of Uzbekistan should such a litigation occur?

How credible can Uzbekistan be anyway considering country's poor human right record?

This can be quite ridiculous. It appears we can't use the only resource we have to our advantage? How about all oil-rich countries sharing their oil money with their less fortunate neighbors then?

My take is that if we need the energy we should have it. Dictating Tajikistan how to reallocate it's resources is meddling in the country's souvereignity.

I am so glad you brought up this issue of water resources.

It is a sore spot for Tajikistan, which needs to develop, but finds itself at odds with its weird and overly closed neighbor.

I am not quite sure how to interpret UN Rights to water notes… It is obvious that all states should have rights to the disposition water, but the question is in proportion of these very rights.

The fact that downstream states (with potentially more agriculture and industry) get preference discriminates against upstream states which want to develop. The situation gets really