Just a few days ago, on 28 July, the UN General Assembly declared the obvious – “the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation [is] a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights.” I say “the obvious” because there seems to be little argument that water is fundamental to life. The disagreement, though, lies in the formulation of the right and what obligations it actually creates.
Does it mean that water should be provided free of charge? By whom? And who should cover the costs? Does it mean that water of a certain quantity and quality must be provided, or would any water do? Does it mean water at your tap or kitchen sink, or merely in the village square? Moreover, against whom would the right be enforceable? Against your own government, or that of another? And, does it create rights in nations as against other countries? Should water-rich Canada be obliged to provide for the water needs of parched Middle Eastern nations?
Unfortunately, the Resolution is long on prologue and short on details. In addition to the above assertion, it also calls on nations and international organizations to fund the realization of “safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all” and encourages the ongoing work of the UN Human Rights Council and its independent expert, Catarina de Albuquerque, on the subject and request that her forthcoming report to the sixty-sixth session of the General Assembly to include “the principal challenges related to the realization of the human right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation and their impact on the achievement of Millennium Development Goals.” Nothing more.
This lack of detail actually was at the heart of the opposition to the Resolution. Yes, there were some who actually tried to prevent its adoption. But not because they thought a human right to water is a bad idea. Rather, they felt the Resolution undermined the formal process underway by the Human Rights Council for developing a substantive and well-formulated human right to water. As asserted by the US representative in his explanation of why the United States abstained in the vote:
“This resolution describes a right to water and sanitation in a way that is not reflective of existing international law; as there is no ‘right to water and sanitation’ in an international legal sense as described by this resolution.
“The United States regrets that this resolution diverts us from the serious international efforts underway to promote greater coordination and cooperation on water and sanitation issues. This resolution attempts to take a short-cut around the serious work of formulating, articulating and upholding universal rights. It was not drafted in a transparent, inclusive manner, and the legal implications of a declared right to water have not yet been carefully and fully considered in this body or in Geneva.”
In other words, it was premature and possibly ill-considered. This objection by the United States, though, was not an isolated protest. As the record of the vote indicates, 40 other countries abstained, including a majority of the developed world. Yet, a number of European nations, including Germany, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland sided with the majority (122 votes in favor) suggesting that the objections are grounded more in the ideology and interpretation of the right itself rather than in any political or socio-economic debate. Moreover, as I have suggested in the past, the objections are probably also based on the complexities of implementing such a right, including addressing how to finance implementation of the right (see my post on water marketing).
Despite its shortcomings, the Resolution is definitely a milestone. While legally non-binding, this statement by the highest of international assemblies indicates that the notion of water as a human right is gaining traction. At the very least, it adds moral (and potentially political) weight to the belief that governments have a responsibility to ensure safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation, at least for their own citizens if not for all. Moreover, it adds to the momentum of those championing the right and suggests that they may be gaining ground on their ultimate goal – a legally binding obligation.