Each year, millions of people die due to illnesses, diseases, and lack the capital to create the infrastructure necessary to combat the problem.
[3] The lack of a common understanding of whether or not water should be viewed as a commodity or a basic human right has resulted in heated debates among legal professionals and leading members of the academia.
[4] In addition to international institutions pushing for privatization, trade agreements in the 20th century have also created the legal framework for allowing the sale of water.
The GATS, known as the General Agreement on Trade in Services, operates on a list in approach, meaning it allows privatization in areas that the nation has agreed to open to other members.
For example, in the US-CAFTA agreement only Costa Rica directly specified that water services were to be excluded from foreign investment the other nations made no similar request.
In 1990 an American company named Sunbelt was invited by the government of British Columbia to invest in a water exporting operation.
After years of battle the Canadian government declared in 1999 that water in its fresh state as those found in rivers and lakes contains no economic value, and is therefore outside the obligations of its trade agreement.
Sunbelt however, disagreed with the applicability of this clause and claimed that Canada’s actions are in direct violation of several international trade agreements.
Particularly, Sunbelt addressed Article XI of GATT which forbids a member nation from imposing measures other than taxes, levies and other charges on the export of its good.
In regards to the talks, the foreign minister of Turkey declared that this agreement will increase the cooperation between the two countries and also lead to peace and stability in the Middle East.