This presentation provides an introduction to the human right to water as defined under international human rights law, and its consequences on broader water management and governance. It was initially developed for a lecture at the UNESCO Center for Water Law - at the University of Dundee - July 2011.

1. The Human Right to Water
Human Rights & Water Sector
Governance
Univ. of Dundee
09/01/2012 1

2. Contents
1. Understanding the
Human Rights Legal
System
2. Definition of the
Human Right to Water
3. Implementation
Challenges
4. Opportunities
09/01/2012 2

3. 1. Understanding the Human Rights
Legal System
“There will be no development without security
and no security without development. And
both development and security also depend on
respect for human rights and the rule of law.”
Kofi Annan, In Larger Freedom (2005)
09/01/2012 3

4. 1.1. A new paradigm
• UN Charter (1945)
– Art.55
– Art.56
– Art.103
• The International Bill of
Rights
– UDHR (1948)
– ICESCR (1966-1976)
– ICCPR (1966-1976)
09/01/2012 4

5. 1.2. Four Generations?
• Vienna Declaration (1993)
“All human rights are universal, indivisible and
interdependent and interrelated. The
international community must treat human
rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on
the same footing, and with the same
emphasis.”, Vienna Declaration, para.5.
09/01/2012 5

6. 2. Definition of the Human Right to
Water
“The human right to water entitles everyone to
sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically
accessible and affordable water for personal
and domestic uses. An adequate amount of
safe water is necessary to prevent death from
dehydration, to reduce the risk of water-
related disease and to provide for
consumption, cooking, personal and domestic
hygienic requirements.”, CESC – GC 15 (2002)
09/01/2012 6

7. 2.1 The misconceptions
Misconception International Law
• Water for free • Affordable
• Public ownership • State’s regulation
• Tap water & Flush latrine • Meeting the objectives
• Immediate entitlement • “Progressive realization” +
“maximum of available
resources”
• Only about a goal • Goals + Means (State’s
margin of discretion)
09/01/2012 7

8. 2.2 Is there a need for a definition?
• Interdependence of Human Rights
• Indirect approach
– Anti-American system
– National Courts (e.g. India)
• Jurisprudence of other TB (CAT; CERD; ICCPR)
• CESC - GC 15 (2002); Role of TB/Courts 
Margin of discretion of the State
• Justification (MBO)
09/01/2012 8

9. 2.3 The Objectives & The Means
Objectives Means
• Sustainability • Non-discrimination
• Quantity (15 – 200l ppd) • Access to information
– Education (Hygiene)
• Quality (WHO standards) • Participation
• Cultural acceptable – Definition of priorities / budget
allocations
• Physically accessible (500m) – Implementation?
• Financially affordable (3% of • Remedy
income) – NAT: Administrative/Const.
courts
– INT: Reg. & Int’l HR
mechanisms
09/01/2012 9

10. 3. Implementation Challenges
“Water is rightfully considered part of the
‘commons’ and managed for the benefit
of all people. This is based on the
understanding that there are some areas
that should not be left to the whims of
the market, but rather should be
managed as a social good and that water
resource management is environmentally
sustainable”
09/01/2012 10

11. 3.1. The recent political steps…
• Mandate of IE/SR on
Right to Water &
Sanitation (2008- )
• UN GA – Resolution
(2011)
• UN HRC – Resolution
(2011)
09/01/2012 11

12. 3.2. Case study – Sierra Leone
• Clause 4.4 & 4.6:The Company is entitled to: …stop up or
alter the course of any watercourse;…shall be entitled to
have exclusive possession over all that forms part of the
Demised Premises including villages, rivers, forests and all
other forms of environment…. shall be entitled to designate
such areas as it wishes…”
• Clause 5.2(a):All Disputes shall be referred to and finally
resolved by arbitration in [London] before[three]
arbitrators under the [Rules of Arbitration of the
International Chamber of Commerce]from time to time in
force… (d) None of the parties may appeal to any court on a
question of law arising out of an award made in the
arbitration…(e) The award shall be final and binding on the
parties or anyone claiming through or under them.
09/01/2012 12

13. 3.3. Hierarchy of norms &
Harmonization Challenges
• Constitutional Recognition
– Min. Land, Mines & Energy ; Agriculture;
Environment; Education; Finances; …
• BIT – Arbitration Courts
– Suez/Aguas Argentinas vs. Argentina (ICSID, 2010)
• Market based & values based
– California; Australia; …
09/01/2012 13

14. 4. Opportunities
09/01/2012 14

15. 4.1. Building bridges
• Water: • Environment:
– UNECE – Water Convention – Aarhus Convention
– UNECE – Protocol on • Human Rights (TBs)
Water & Health – Shadow Reports: CEDAW ;
• Water-Related: CRC
– Post 2015 – MDGs – Complaints: IACHR
(Guatemala)
– WHO – May 24th
Resolution – Research: ACHPR (Extractive
Industry)
– UNISDR - GP-DRR
• HR (Political)
– UNFCCC
– SR
– UN HRC
09/01/2012 15

16. 4.2. The WaterLex Approach
Governance Functions Our Human Rights Lens
1. Situation analysis • Non-discrimination
2. Priority setting • Access to information
3. Budget allocation • Participation
4. Project planning • Remedy
5. Human Resources
allocation Our goal
• Sustainability, Quantity, Qua
6. Monitoring & Evaluation lity, Acceptability, Physical
Accessibility, Affordability
09/01/2012 16

17. 5. Conclusion
1. Need to look at RTWS within dynamic of IHRL
(itself within broader Int’l Law Framework)
2. Procedural Guarantees are the 1st step to
‘operationalize’ RTWS
3. Multi-level entry points
Thanks!
09/01/2012 17
(