Revisiting the Human Right to Water

Abstract

This thesis critically examines the mainstream discourse on the human right to water and suggests that it is narrow, inadequate, and meaningless to all those who see in such a formulation neither a recognition of their suffering, nor a possibility of its mitigation. In addition to highlighting the limitations of the mainstream discourse, the thesis also sheds light on alternative ways of formulating a more meaningful right to water. The thesis first traces the origin and legal basis of the human right to water within international law. Thereafter, four broad themes that constitute the mainstream discourse on the right to water are identified based on an analysis of the 'soft law' and prominent scholarly literature on the topic. These are-(i) the right to water as an entitlement, (ii) the right to water as a consumer right, (iii) the relationship between the right to water and the right to development, and (iv) the right to water and governance. The abovementioned aspects of the mainstream discourse are revisited and problematized by using critiques of human rights drawn from critical legal pluralism, post-colonial studies, critical development theory, post-modernism and studies broadly referred to as the Third World Approaches to International Law. It is suggested that when viewed from alternative perspectives, the right to water, as conceptualised within the mainstream discourse, appears as being meaningless to people in 'most of the world'. The inability of the mainstream discourse to look beyond the dominant notions of 'rights', 'development' and 'governance' and the assumptions they are based upon, and further, the failure to incorporate other meanings reduces the emancipatory potential of the human right to water. Adopting an alternative approach, the thesis documents a grassroots movement in Plachimada in India which grew from the people's resistance to the excessive extraction of groundwater by a subsidiary of the Coca-Cola Company. The case study illustrates the inadequacy of the mainstream formulation of the right to water. It also reveals opportunities for understanding and defining the right 'from below' and creates hope for the recovery of its emancipatory potential.

Human Right to Water: Contemporary Challenges and Contours of a Global Debate

“…Further, she argues that the HRW is (potentially) compatible with privatization schemes—making it fundamentally flawed to deal with water challenges related to ongoing processes of neoliberalization (more below). Bakker's critique also shares a more general concern with the individualistic, Western, state‐centric, anthropocentric, and universalistic bases of “rights talk” (see also Parmar 2008; Redgwell 1996), leading to a questioning of the appropriateness of this approach to deal with critical ecological challenges or issues faced by marginalized, indigenous, and non‐Western populations. As Parmar concludes, drawing from the case of resistance to a Coca‐Cola plant in southern India, mainstream discussions related to the right to water fail to contest exclusions and limitations of the dominant human rights discourse, and as such are subject to being co‐opted by the very forces they seek to challenge 4 .…”

“…As Parmar concludes, drawing from the case of resistance to a Coca‐Cola plant in southern India, mainstream discussions related to the right to water fail to contest exclusions and limitations of the dominant human rights discourse, and as such are subject to being co‐opted by the very forces they seek to challenge 4 . Given these challenges, several alternatives to the HRW have been proposed, including water as commons (Bakker 2010), rights as freedom (Parmar 2008), alter‐globalization, capabilities (Sangameswaran 2007:18), and non‐Western approaches. Yet it is acknowledged that each of these also carry their own difficulties and weaknesses 5…”

Revisiting the Human Right to Water from an environmental justice lens

“…In one of the most pronounced critiques to date, Bakker (2007) questions the degree to which the HRW serves anti-privatization agendas given that there is no reason why private companies cannot be part and parcel of an HRW agenda (indeed, many companies have adopted HRW as a discourse). In a similar vein, Parmar (2008) cites evidence that the HRW can be particularly hostile to the needs and goals of historically marginalized communities, including indigenous populations, given the Western lineage of "rights talk" biases inherent to its focus on individuated rights. Mehta (2006) problematizes the HRW focus on domestic water, rather than livelihood needs, and also highlights problems with implementation that can leave marginalized communities with substandard access.…”

“…However, we also find clear evidence that the HRW has been effective, in some cases, to further access to resources for marginalized and underserved communities. In this dialog essay, we side with Parmar (2008), Sultana and Loftus (2012), and others regarding the urgent need for ongoing conversations about the meaning, implementation, and political possibilities associated with the HRW.…”

Measuring disparities in access to water based on the normative content of the human right

“…Despite critiques of the concept (K. Bakker 2007;Parmar 2008) other authors (Mirosa and Harris 2011) conclude that this human right maintains importance as a strategy in the contemporary moment and thus, can be seen as an opportunity to advance in monitoring the sector (O. Flores et al 2013;Luh et al 2013).…”