<p>Este artículo presenta los resultados de un estudio empírico que sistematizó las acciones populares falladas por el Consejo de Estado colombiano durante un<br />período de 17 años (1998-2015). Los autores utilizaron metodologías de análisis cuantitativo y cualitativo para sistematizar más de 250 fallos de acciones populares decididas por el Consejo de Estado. Los resultados presentados en este artículo muestran las tendencias más importantes del litigio de acciones populares ambientales en Colombia: tipos de demandantes y demandados; tipo de recursos medioambientales protegidos; tasas de éxito de los demandantes; regiones y ciudades más litigiosas; efectos generales del incentivo económico en el tipo de litigio, entre otras variables. Los resultados de este estudio también muestran que el incentivo económico para las acciones populares no estaba favoreciendo los intereses de litigantes temerarios, como lo sostuvo el gobierno nacional cuando propuso al Congreso una reforma a las acciones populares, que se concretó en la Ley 1425 de 2010. Finalmente, se sugiere que la eliminación del incentivo económico de las acciones populares puede tener un efecto negativo sobre el litigio de interés público.</p>

This paper answers the question: has the Colombian Congress been effective at addressing relevant water conflicts and making them visible? While courts and social movements have been key for the advancement of social rights in Latin America, the role of legislators remains unclear. We conduct content analysis of all water-related bills, proposed bills, and constitutional amendments filed in Colombia from 1991 to 2020; we also analyzed Congress hearings of political control related to water; and the statutes of political parties who hold majority of seats in Congress. We also and conducted interviews with key actors on water governance in Colombia. We find that only three bills have passed in the 30-year time frame and that relevant water conflicts have not been addressed by Colombian legislators. We find that water conflicts are not reaching the political agenda of Congress, yet through political control hearings, it has given some late visibility to critical territorial conflicts in which water is a key element. We analyze our data in light of literature on legislative politics and legal mobilization in Latin America. This study adds to global research on the role of legislators in advancing the human right to water, particularly in Latin America.

No abstract

In this paper we compare recent efforts towards the constitutionalization of the right to water in Brazil, Colombia, and Peru to understand the opportunities and limitations related to the attempts to enhance access to piped water to the highest normative level. Peru passed a constitutional amendment in 2017 while Brazil and Colombia have seen much right-to-water activism but have not succeeded in passing such reforms. We explore the role of the existing domestic legal frameworks on drinkable water provision and water management towards the approval of constitutional amendments. We find that all three countries have specialized laws, water governing institutions, and constitutional jurisprudence connecting access to water with rights, but the legal opportunity structures to enforce socio-economic rights vary; they are stronger in Colombia and Brazil, and weaker in Peru. We argue that legal opportunity structures build legal environments that influence constitutional reform success. Legal opportunity structures act as incentives both for social movements to push for reforms and for actors with legislative power to accept or reject them. Our findings also show that in some contexts political cost is a key element of constitutional reforms that enshrine the right to water; therefore, this is an element that should be considered when analyzing these processes.

This article analyzes the role of the Colombian Council of State, the administrative court of highest level in Colombia, in cases of collective litigation (acción popular). It answers the questions: Do outcomes in these cases vary depending on the right under litigation? Do parties with more resources achieve better outcomes? Does the government hold an advantage when facing other parties? The article analyzes quantitatively an original database of collective litigation cases on environmental protection, public security, the rights of consumers, and administrative morality, and interprets these findings using interview data. Results show that parties’ success rates vary depending on the right under litigation. The national government has the highest litigation success rate, but individuals are more likely to win than stronger parties like department and local governments. The article presents implications following the literature on courts and rights protection in the Global South and party capability.