Accounts of hydro-hegemony and counter hydro-hegemony provide state-based conceptions of power in international river basins. However, authority should be seen as transnationalized as small states develop coping strategies to augment their authority over decision-making processes. The article engages Rosenau’s spheres of authority concept to argue that hydro-hegemony is exercised by actors embedded in spheres of authority that reshape actor configurations as they emerge. These spheres consist of complex networks challenging customary notions of the local-global dichotomy and hydro-hegemony. Hydro-hegemony is therefore not fixed. The article examines these processes by analysing the dispute over the Xayaburi Dam in the Mekong Basin.

An evolving literature on the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus argues that there is a need to better understand the conditions under which nexus coordination may occur. A case in point are hydropower investments on shared rivers which might impact the provision of energy, water and food security across borders. In international basins, governing the WEF nexus impacts of hydropower relies on voluntary negotiations between the respective countries involved. It has been argued that such negotiations may be facilitated by regional organizations, such as international river basin organizations (IRBOs), but this claim has hardly been investigated systematically. Drawing on regime theory in international relations and the literature on benefit sharing, this paper asks what role regional organizations may play in governing hydropower-related WEF nexus impacts. It compares three cases of hydropower planning on shared rivers. The Rusumo Falls and the Ruzizi III hydropower projects (HPPs) are joint investments in Africa's Great Lakes region facilitated by an IRBO and a regional energy organization, respectively. On the Mekong, Laos is constructing the Xayaburi dam despite reservations by the Mekong River Commission and downstream riparians. The paper finds IRBOs and regional energy organizations may play a role in facilitating cross-border nexus governance by supporting benefit-sharing arrangements and by fostering the application of environmental and social safeguards and international law principles. However, it also shows that the influence of regional organizations varies, and how successfully they support nexus governance also depends on whether the HPP is planned unilaterally or jointly; the availability and consensus on data on nexus impacts; and the presence or absence of donors and private sector capital and investors.

The paper analyses the security dimension of the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) by taking into account traditional as well as non-traditional security issues. The Greater Mekong Subregion, which was established in 1992 at the initiative of the ADB, emerged after the Cold War in the wake of the so-called new regionalism as one of the growth triangles within ASEAN. Participating countries/regions are China's Yunnan province, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The article places the discussion of the Greater Mekong Subregion within the debate on post-Cold War sub-regionalism and sets out to discuss the development of regionalism in the Mekong Basin. The article shows how economic cooperation is followed in the pursuit of security and stability in a formerly conflict-ridden area and assesses the relevance of the GMS towards the issue of conflict reduction in the Mekong Basin.

This paper studies environmental norm contestation in Cambodia's hydropower sector, exemplified by the Kamchay Dam. In Cambodia we can observe different discourses in relation to hydropower. These stem directly from a local contest over the path of Cambodia's development, but use global norms as reference points: one emphasizes environmental protection, using environmental impact assessment (EIA) as point of reference; and one emphasizes the utility of the clean development mechanism (CDM) to attract large-scale investment into the energy sector while downplaying the need for environmental protection. While EIA and CDM are complementary, key actors present them as contradictory. This produces a normative fragmentation of the field of environmental protection. The paper argues that the norm diffusion literature, by presenting norm conflicts as hierarchical local–global conflicts, has paid insufficient attention to the fact that local actors actively draw on global norms to justify domestic development policies. More emphasis on this phenomenon will lead to a better understanding of the role of global norms in domestic politics and will enhance our knowledge of how domestic development policies are contested.