Human right to sanitation in the legal and non‐legal literature: the need for greater synergy

Abstract

This review paper analyzes the legal and non-legal literature on the human right to sanitation (HRS). It shows that despite applying different paradigms in framing the HRS, both literature support the following three main conclusions: (a) state and non-state actors, particularly NGOs and private service providers, have potentially mutually supportive roles in the implementation of the human right to water and sanitation (HRWS); (b) the implementation is enmeshed in three potential conflicts-between the human rights approach and cost recovery, state provision of services and the implicit legitimization of informal settlements, and the empowerment of vocal rights holders rather than the marginalized rights holders for whom these rights are primarily meant; and (c) HRWS needs to be better linked to other fields and broader issues to ensure complementarities. The paper also highlights important lessons for both legal and non-legal scholars to learn from each other's research and possibly forge strong multi-and interdisciplinary research themes. Non-legal scholars can benefit from the legal literature's coverage of: (a) the normative content of the HRWS; (b) the theoretical justifications for HRWS; (c) the legal status of HRWS; (d) enforcement mechanisms; and (e) the accountability of duty bearers. Legal scholars can also benefit from the non-legal literature's coverage of: (a) a broader scope for the HRWS and the indicators and monitoring systems used by non-lawyers; (b) learning from the community-led total sanitation (CLTS) experience; (c) the economic justifications for HRWS; (d) the need to link to appropriate technologies; and (e) the accountability of nonstate actors. © 2016 The Authors. WIREs Water published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. How to cite this article:WIREs Water 2016Water , 3:678-691. doi: 10.1002Water /wat2.1162 INTRODUCTIONT he human right to sanitation (HRS) is a legal construct primarily discussed by legal scholars, but it has emerged as a prominent socio-political discourse and engaged a much wider community beyond lawyers. Its prominence in tackling the global sanitation challenge has been on the rise, particularly since the International Year of Sanitation in 2008 and the adoption of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolutions on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation (HRWS) in 2010. The HRS has since become a subject for conceptual, sociopolitical, and legal enquiries about its meaning, impact on human lives, and enforceability as a binding right. Hence, this paper adopts a multidisciplinary perspective to explore the main HRS-focused research themes in the legal (used here as a generic term for publications by legal scholars) (see second section) and non-legal literature (used here as a THE HRS IN THE LEGAL LITERATUREThe legal literature discusses the HRS mostly within the context of the HRW and the HRWS and only more recently as an independent right, hence the structure of this section. The Human Right to Water and Sanitation (HR...

Wastewater management by citizens: mismatch between legal rules and self-organisation in Oosterwold

“…Wastewater management is considered a public good for the benefit of humanity and the environment (Obani and Gupta 2016). It is within this context that wastewater management is legally institutionalised on a variety of scales, ranging from European, national, provincial to the local level.…”

Accountability in the Governance of Global Change

“…Actors may also be driven by internal logics of accountability (oriented towards those within the system or direct stakeholders) or by external logics (oriented to those actors outside the system or external stakeholders) (Keohane 2003;Bäckstrand 2008). It is notable that these rationales implicitly or explicitly link accountability with legitimacy, inclusiveness (Dingwerth 2005), democracy, democratic legitimacy (Fuchs, Kalfagianni, and Havinga 2011) and representativeness, impartiality, empowerment, deliberativeness, lawfulness (Leach 2013, Leach 2006, human rights (Obani and Gupta 2016), distributive justice (Okereke and Coventry 2016) and transparency (Kramarz 2016, Gupta 2010. Not all of these links are clear, however, with the strength and direction of effects both subject to ongoing debate (Jamali 2010, Few, Brown & Tompkins 2011, Papadopoulos 2014).…”

An introduction to the human right to water: Law, politics, and beyond

“…Water allocation and distribution for productive activities such as agriculture fall outside the scope of the human right to water and are usually referred to as “water rights.” In spite of this consensus, there are still discrepancies in the definition, with different wording—human right to water, right to access to water, right to safe drinking water, etc.—emphasizing different dimensions of the issue. The scope of the human right to water is also debated in relation to the right to sanitation, recently acknowledged by the UN General Assembly as an independent right: on one side, domestic water and sanitation are strongly interconnected and therefore require coordinated implementation; on the other side, they have their own social, political, and physical specificities, calling for due attention to the unique requirements for sanitation, often neglected in favor of water supply interventions (Obani & Gupta, ).…”