Kathmandu School of Law Review

P-ISSN : 2091-2110, E-ISSN : 2773-8159, DOI : 10.46985, Publisher : Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal
Annual flagship journal of Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal

Volume 5, Issue 2, November 2017
Articles

‘A Right to Water’ in International Human Rights Law: Flow from Implicit to Explicit Right

PDF
  • Swechhya Sangroula
Swechhya Sangroula
Kathmandu School of Law
Bio

Published 2017-11-30

How to Cite

Sangroula, S. (2017). ‘A Right to Water’ in International Human Rights Law: Flow from Implicit to Explicit Right. Kathmandu School of Law Review, 5(2), 156–164. Retrieved from https://kslreview.org/index.php/kslr/article/view/988

Abstract

The paper relies on doctrinal method of study in determining whether a right to water exists under international human rights law. As primary source, the paper relies on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the products of the ICESCR’s monitoring system: Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and particularly the work of the CESCR, which is the subsidiary body of the ECOSOC, tasked with monitoring functions, since 1985. The paper relies on the international interpretation of relevant ICESCRprovisions made by the CESCR as ‘evidence of the meaning and application of the Covenant’.1 The paper also relies on the study of relevant Concluding Observations issued by the CESCR during the course of its monitoring of states’ periodic reports. The primary reason, being, that unlike ICCPR’s Human Rights Committee jurisprudence, the ICESCR has not developed a body of jurisprudence from its treaty body. As secondary sources, scholarly writings and published academic debates have been referred to gauge the contents of the academic debate surrounding the issue.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Ben Saul, David Kinley & Jacqueline Mowbray, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Commentary Cases and Materials (Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 4.
  2. United Nations General Assembly, The human right to water and sanitation, 64th session A/RES/64/292 (03 August 2010), 1.
  3. OHCHR, The Right to Water, Fact Sheet 25, August 2010, p. 1.
  4. CESCR, General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant), 29th sess. E/C.12/2002/11 (20 January 2003), p. 2.
  5. Saul et al (n 1) pp. 899, 904.
  6. Matthew Craven, ‘Some Thoughts on the Emergent Right to Water’ in Eibe Riedel and Peter Rothen (eds), The Human Rights to Water (Belin: Berliner Wissenchafts Verlag, 2006) Chapter 2 cited in Saul et al (n 1) p. 899.
  7. Malcolm Langford, ‘Ambition that overleaps itself? A response to Stephen Tully’s Critique of the General Comment on the Right to Water’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol. 24/3, 2006, p. 439.
  8. ECOSOC Res. 1985/17, Review of the Composition, Organization and Administrative Arrangements of the Sessional Working Group of Governmental Experts on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E/RES/1985 (28 May 1985) cited in Saul et al (n 1), p. 4.
  9. General Comment No. 15 (n 4) p. 1.
  10. General Comment No. 15 (n 4) p. 3.
  11. Ibid.
  12. CESCR General Comment No. 6: The Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Older Persons, 13th sess. E/1996/22 (8 December 1995), p. 5, p. 32.
  13. Stephen Tully, ‘A Human Right to Access Water? A Critique of General Comment No. 15’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol.23, No. 1, 2005, p. 37 quoting M. Dennis and D.
  14. Stewart, ‘Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Should There Be an International Complaints Mechanism to Adjudicate the Rights to Food, Water, Housing and Health?’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 98, 2004, pp. 462-515.
  15. Stephen Tully, ‘Flighty Purposes and Deeds: A Rejoinder to Malcolm Langford’, Netherands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol. 24, 2006, p. 461.
  16. Tully (n 13) p. 35.
  17. Langford (n 7) p. 434.
  18. Saul et al (n 1) p. 906.
  19. Ibid p. 899.
  20. Fact Sheet 25 (n 3) p. 1.
  21. UNGA Right to Water Resolution (n 2) p. 1.
  22. Ilias Bantekas & Lutz Oette, International Human Rights Law and Practice (2nd edn: Cambridge University Press, 2016) p. 433.
  23. Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, 21 May 1997, 36 ILM 700 (Entered into force: on 17 August 2014), articles 6(1)(b), 10(2) cited in Bantekas & Oette (n 21), p. 433.
  24. Takele Soboka Bulto, ‘The Emergence of the Human Right to Water in International Human Rights Law: Invention or Discovery?’ (2011), Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 12, 2011, p. 17.
  25. Ibid pp. 5, 25.
  26. Constitution of South Africa, Article 27(1)(h): “Everyone has the right to have access to sufficient food and water”.
  27. Saul et al (n 1) p. 915.
  28. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (Entered into force: 27 January 1980) article 31(3).
  29. Bulto (n 23) p. 15.
  30. Ibid.
  31. General Comment No. 15 (n 4) p. 10.
  32. Ibid p. 13.
  33. Ibid p. 20.
  34. Ibid pp. 20-24.
  35. CESCR, Concluding Observations: Canada, E/C.12/CAN/CO/4, E/C.12/CAN/CO/5 (22 May 2006), p. 30.
  36. Views of the United States of America on Human Rights and Access to Water, Submitted to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, June 2007, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/water/contributions/UnitedStatesofAmerica.pdf, accessed on 01 August 2017, p. 1.
  37. Ibid p. 12.
  38. Ibid p. 8.
  39. Ibid, p. 4.
  40. Tully (n 13) cited in Langford (n 7) p. 437, footnote 11.
  41. Ibid.
  42. Langford (n 7) p. 434.
  43. Mosetlhanyane and Others v. Attorney-General (Kalahari Bushmen case), (Botswana) (2011) cited in Bantekas & Oette (n 21 ), pp.435-436.
  44. Ibid, p. 436.
  45. Angela Poma Poma v. Peru, (Human Rights Committee), Communication No. 1457/2006 (27 March 2009) p. 7.6.
  46. Ibid p. 7.7.
  47. Attakoya Thangal v. Union of India (1990) 1 KLT 580 cited in Saul et al (n 1), p. 916.
  48. Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria (Communication No. 155/96), (2001) cited in Saul (n 1), p. 918.
  49. General Comment No. 15 (n 4) p. 4.
  50. CESCR, General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant), 29th sess. E/C.12/2002/11 (20 January 2003), p. 6.
  51. Bulto (n 23), p. 15.
  52. Ibid p. 15.
  53. General Comment No. 15 (n 4), p. 1.
  54. James W. Nickel, ‘Chapter 5: A Framework for Justifying Human Rights’ in James W. Nickel, Making Sense of Human Rights (Blackwell Publishers, 2007), p. 76.
  55. Ibid p. 54.
  56. Henry Shue, Basic Rights (2nd edn Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 32 cited in Nickel (n 53) p. 71.
  57. Nickel (n 53) p. 71.
  58. General Comment No. 15 (n 4) p. 39.
  59. Ibid p. 43.
  60. Ibid p. 44.
  61. CESCR, General Comment No. 8: The relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights E/C.12/1997/8 (1997), p. 3, p. 5.
  62. Nickel (n 53) p. 75.