Transboundary water interaction II: the influence of ‘soft’ power

This paper seeks to broaden the analysis of transboundary water interaction, by examining and interpreting the influence of ‘soft’ power therein. The ‘soft’ power of persuasion is understood to be exercised through discursive and to a lesser extent ideational means, and is interpreted in terms of compliance related to distributive (conflictual) or integrative (consensual) ends (after Scott (1994)). The focus is on inter-state water conflicts in hegemonic political contexts, where, it is found, the ‘first among equals’ has a greater ability to exploit ‘soft’ power and to determine the outcome. ‘Soft’ power is also seen to influence the choices states make or avoid in their transboundary water interaction, which explains in part how treaties intending to manage conflict may in fact delay or perpetuate it. For example, ‘soft’ power can be used by the basin hegemon to frame inequitable forms of cooperation in a cooperative light, such that unfair and ultimately unsustainable transboundary arrangements are replicated by the international donor community. Non-hegemonic riparian states also employ their capacity of ‘soft’ power, though may find themselves with little choice other than to comply with the arrangement established by the basin hegemon. The findings stress the importance of analysts questioning claims of interaction promoted as ‘cooperative’, and of examining the ‘soft’ power plays that underlie all transboundary water arrangements. Exemplification is provided through transboundary river basins and aquifers around the globe.     

The effect of cleaning agents on the ability to obtain DNA profiles using the Identifiler™ and PowerPlex® Y multiplex kits

Abstract: A year after the introduction of Identifiler? into the forensic DNA laboratories of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited (ESR), increasing occurrences of dropout of the three loci, D7S820, D18S51, and FGA, were observed in samples where the DNA was not degraded and sufficient DNA was present that full DNA profiles were to be expected. The dropout was either partial or complete at these loci. Full profiles could sometimes be obtained by reamplification of samples using the same input amount of DNA. After a thorough investigation of the methods and procedures used in the laboratory, the cause of this inhibition was identified as the cleaning agent TriGene? ADVANCE. This was determined after the deliberate addition of varying amounts of different cleaning reagents into the DNA amplification reactions. At concentrations of 0.004% TriGene? ADVANCE caused inhibition resulting in tri‐loci dropout. At concentrations of 0.04% and higher, complete inhibition was observed. An effect was also seen on the amplification of samples using the Y STR profiling system PowerPlex^®Y. This work highlights the importance of checking all reagents and chemicals prior to use, even those with no apparent direct influence on the DNA profiling process.