What Constitutes an Equitable Water Share? A Reassessment of Equitable Apportionment in the Jordan-Israel Water Agreement 25 Years Later
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The water agreement between Jordan and Israel, created as part of their peace treaty in 1994, set out detailed allocations terms to which both countries have respectively abided since its inception. But after two and a half decades, the water agreement terms no longer appear as equitable considering the social, economic, and environmental changes that have occurred in the region as a whole and within the two countries individually. This paper analyzes the status of the treaty terms in light of changes seen within both countries regarding the factors laid out by the United Nations as relevant to determining equitable apportionment among riparian nations. The analysis suggests that a renegotiation of the water agreement terms is warranted due in large part to changes in population and the availability of alternative water resources (desalination and treated wastewater). While no explicit recommendations are made as to what a future treaty's terms should include, this paper presents evidence of a changing ground reality that deserves greater consideration in reaching a more equitable and sustainable water agreement for the decades to come.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".