Human right to water and sanitation
In July 2010, United Nations (UN) General Assembly Resolution 64/292 reasserted the human right to receive safe, affordable, and clean accessible water and sanitation services.
The United Nations Development Programme has stated that broad recognition of the significance of accessing dependable and clean water and sanitation services will promote wide expansion of the achievement of a healthy and fulfilling life.
[4] The HRWS obliges governments to ensure that people can enjoy quality, available, acceptable, accessible, and affordable water and sanitation.
[1] The ICESCR requires signatory countries to progressively achieve and respect all human rights, including those of water and sanitation.
[20][21][22] By 2024, new estimates are much higher, with 4.4 billion people in low- and middle-income countries lacking access to safe household drinking water.
[28][29] Scholars also called attention to the importance of possible UN recognition of human rights to water and sanitation at the end of the twentieth century.
Two early efforts to define the human right to water came from law professor Stephen McCaffrey of the University of the Pacific in 1992[30] and Dr. Peter Gleick in 1999.
[30] Gleick added: "that access to a basic water requirement is a fundamental human right implicitly and explicitly supported by international law, declarations, and State practice.
"[31] The UN Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) overseeing ICESCR compliance came to similar conclusions as these scholars with General Comment 15 in 2002.
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.
"[32] Several countries agreed and formally acknowledged the right to water to be part of their treaty obligations under the ICESCR (e.g., Germany; United Kingdom;[33] Netherlands[34]) after publication of General Comment 15.
[11] Following intense negotiations, 122 countries formally acknowledged "the Human Right to Water and Sanitation" in General Assembly Resolution 64/292 on 28 July 2010.
"[17] The General Assembly declared that clean drinking water is "essential to the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights".
[42] Léo Heller was appointed in 2014 to be the second Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation.
The most recent General Assembly Resolution 7/169 of 2015 has been called a declaration of "The Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation.
[46] The following cases from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) concern the contracts established between governments and corporations for the maintenance of waterways.
Although the cases regard questions of investment, commentators have noted that the indirect impact of the right to water upon the verdicts is significant.
[49] The dispute was between the Argentine Republic and Azurix Corporation regarding discrepancies arising from a 30-year contract between the parties to operate the water supply of various provinces.
A consideration in regard to the right to water is implicitly made during the arbitration for compensation, where it was held that Azurix was entitled to a fair return on the market value of the investment.
[54] The basis for this has been established through the constitutionalisation of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) through one of two means: as "directive principles" that are goals and are often non-justiciable; or as expressly protected and enforceable through the courts.
The court held the residents of Phiri should be provided with a free basic water supply of 50 litres per person per day.
The SCA declared that the installation of water meters was illegal, but suspended the order for two years to give the city an opportunity to rectify the situation.
Therefore, the minimum content set out by the regulation 3(b) is constitutional, rendering the bodies to deviate upwards and further it is inappropriate for a court to determine the achievement of any social and economic right the government has taken steps to implement.
[71] Here a water usage dispute arose due to the fact that the state of Haryana was using the Jamuna River for irrigation, while the residents of Delhi needed it for the purpose of drinking.
[72] Also notable is the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, where a discharge of sludge from the washeries into the Bokaro River was petitioned against by way of public interest litigation.
Under the guidance of founder Dr Priyanand Agale, the ENF arranges a variety of several programmes to ensure the right to water for Indian citizens.
[75] The New Zealand Law Society has recently indicated that this country would give further consideration to the legal status of economic, social and cultural rights.
The City of Auburn billed Pilchen for the landlord's arrears, and repeatedly shut her water service off without notice when she could not pay these debts, making the house uninhabitable.
However, NWI is not concerned broadly about complex history of settler-colonialism, which has systematically created an unequal pattern of water distribution.
Often, two schools of thought emerge from such discourse: it is the state's responsibility to provide access to clean water to people versus the privatization of distribution and sanitation.
