Hi everyone,
In class we discussed how the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not include the right to water. I had thought that recently the United Nations had recognized water as a human right. In 2010 the UN did recognize access to water and sanitation as a human right through Resolution 64/292. The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights stated that "The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity." However, while being recognized as a human right it has not been added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I do not know what the consequences of such a legal distinction are, if anyone does please share.
Here is the resolution itself and the link to the UN's website on the right to water.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/292
http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml
Even without being added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the UN has started many initiatives to make the right a reality. However, long term enforcement does bring up some interesting questions.
First, the World Health Organization states that "50 to 100 liters of water per person per day are needed to ensure that most basic needs are met." This is what the UN wishes to make reality though the resolution itself gives not minimum value. However, we must assume that some minimum quantity of water per day will eventually be fulling recognized. This implies that every region of the planet, even rainforests, now have a population cap on them.For regions where population is already well over that limit does that mean that we must now begin sending vast quantities of water to those regions or does it mean that we should mandate that a certain number of people should move from there to reduce ecological stress on that region. Does Colorado, which currently is able to provide water to everyone but due to huge growth will face a great challenge to do so in the future have a right to kick people out of the state to protect the water rights of those already there? This would seem to violate many other rights in the declaration about freedom to have a nationality, freedom to leave a country and come back, and even the right to work etc.
The statistic itself, 50 to 100 liters, is deceiving as well. I believe statistics on water per person per day are calculated by total water used in a region, including domestic, agricultural, and industrial, divided by total people living there. Thus, if we let it stand that people are entitled to 50 liters minimum of personal use then water may be taken away from places where it is very much needed.
Finally, what should the United Nations do when member states explicitly deny this right to their people, as what has occurred recently in impoverished areas of Detroit. Imposing sanctions or pursuing military action against a state violating this right is may destroy more life than violating the right would.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to fulfilling our water needs through infrastructure development, we already have several case studies here in the US, in places like California, where water must already be piped across hundreds of miles to reach the major population centers. So the question is not so much that we must begin sending vast quantities of water to those regions, but rather, in many cases, reevaluate where that water could be coming from. We've already dug ourselves a pit across several regions where we have used technology to exceed the limiting capacity for a region as we globalize, and developing more local policies and water collection technologies is certainly going to be an uphill battle. And for this reason, I'm not so sure that there are express "population caps" for every region, even when we agree to provide 50 to 100 L of water per person.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I do agree that we will see an interesting point of time in the near future where our water demands begin to exceed the limits of what we can provide even including our technological innovations. When this happens, cities are going to need to make drastic decisions like preventing people from settling down there, in order to protect the common right shared by those that already live in those cities.
"Finally, what should the United Nations do when member states explicitly deny this right to their people, as what has occurred recently in impoverished areas of Detroit. Imposing sanctions or pursuing military action against a state violating this right is may destroy more life than violating the right would. "
ReplyDeleteI found this particularly interesting to consider. How do we enforce these rights without violating other rights on the list? Furthermore, whose responsibility is it to enforce these rights? Is it on the country, community, or world?
The Declaration itself has a vague clause regarding responsibility. It says that “Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” This ‘pledge’ makes these ‘agreements’ almost useless in the long run as far as implementation.
Additionally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has very little in terms of metrics for the successes of the laws. They set broad goals hoping that all humans share this experience, but have no way to measure if more or less people are getting the experience itself.
Like we discussed in class, many of these problems in the UDHA could be because it is dated. If, as a world, we are serious about universal human rights, we need to have a serious document with serious ramifications that address current (and urgent!) problems. Pledging is nice, changing reality (revolution?) is better.