NationStates Jolt Archive

Drafting is now complete, and a complete version has been submitted for review
click here for a direct link to the proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Water)
The complete and final version is below.

Right to water
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Hirota

Description: NOTING that Water is essential for life;

CONCERNED that many people face water shortages on an alarmingly regular basis;

NOTING a substantial shortfall in availability of potable water;

NOTING that access to safe water is a fundamental need, and therefore a basic human right;

AWARE of existing water use and rights on international and national water bodies;

ASPIRING that:
a) each person has the right to a water supply that is sufficient and continuous for personal and domestic uses, such as drinking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation, personal and household hygiene.
b) each person is also entitled to water of adequate quality.
c) water should be accessible to all, in terms of location, economic accessibility and indiscriminate

MINDFUL that limitations of resources make these aspirations difficult or impossible in the short and medium term;

MANDATES member states shall:
a) respect the right to water, by refraining from interfering directly or indirectly with the beneficial use of the right to water for anyone;
b) protect the right to water, by preventing 3rd parties from interfering directly or indirectly with the beneficial use of the right to water for anyone;
c) ensure best possible access to the minimum essential amount of water, that is sufficient and safe for personal and domestic uses to prevent disease
d) ensure the right of access to water and water facilities and services on a non-discriminatory basis, especially for disadvantaged or marginalized groups
e) ensure best possible physical access to water facilities or services that provide sufficient, safe and regular water; that have a sufficient number of water outlets to avoid prohibitive waiting times; and that are at a reasonable distance from the household
f) ensure personal security is not threatened when accessing water
g) ensure best possible equitable distribution of all available water facilities and services
h) adopt relatively low-cost targeted water programmes to protect vulnerable and marginalized groups
i) take measures to prevent, treat and control diseases linked to water, in particular ensuring access to adequate sanitation

OBLIGES member states to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, to the maximum of its available resources, with a long term objective of achieving accessible water supplies of adequate quality,

REMINDS member states that they have a ongoing duty to progress as effectively as possible towards the full realisation of the right to water;

URGES member states to assist and co-operate with the international community, such as sharing best practices and expertise.

URGES member states co-operate in good faith to ensure the best possible accessibility of water to all, irrespective of nationality;

RESERVES member states margin of discretion to fulfil their obligations under this legislation

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 123 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Sep 2 2006

Repeal UNWCC thread:
There was discussion that UNWCC would need to be repealled before this was submitted. Having consulted fellow member states, I believe that is not the case
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11505056

Water as a human right?

1) One could argue that since access to safe water is a fundamental human need it could be considered, therefore, a basic human right. Without water, there is no human rights.

2) You could argue that Human rights are a result of internationally guaranteed standards that ensure the fundamental freedoms and dignity of individuals and communities. In effect, it would become a human right because the international community would deem it so.

3) Ignoring 2), Human rights can also exist independently of international law by being part of actual and fundamental human moralities. All human groups have moralities, that is, imperative norms of behavior backed by reasons and values. These moralities contain specific norms (e.g., a prohibition of the intentional murder of an innocent person) and specific values (e.g., valuing human life.) One way in which human rights could exist apart from divine or human enactment is as norms accepted in all or almost all actual human moralities. If almost all human groups have moralities containing norms prohibiting murder, these norms could constitute the human right to life. Human rights can be seen as basic moral norms shared by all or almost all accepted human moralities. I'd say that having access to life/water is a broadly accepted is a basic moral norm, and thus this right could exist as a right outside of international law already because it is a broadly accepted social norm.

In effect, the right to water may already exist as a right because it is already recognised as a broadly accepted social norm. This legislation would seek to enshrine that implicit and broadly recognised social norm as a right in international law.

4) Access to water has many knock on effects to other rights. Water is required for a range of different purposes, besides personal and domestic uses, to realize many of the Covenant rights. For instance, water is necessary to produce food (right to adequate food) and ensure environmental hygiene (right to health).Water
is essential for securing livelihoods (right to gain a living by work) and enjoying certain cultural practices (right to take part in cultural life).

Hello,

My government asked me to participate in these discussions, given the technical nature of the draft proposal. That said, at this time I do not have any sort of official endorsement (i.e. I can't pledge monetary or political resources) of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity, as I'm just an engineer in the employee of Gletscher Engineering ... but I'll certainly pass along recommendations to Ambassador Katzman's Office.

I've glaced over the beginning half of the draft proposal, and find the preamble well designed. However, I immediately had some questions about what I'm calling the first activating clause (which starts with "MANDATES member states shall").

First, subclauses a and be talk about the need for "enjoyment" of water resources. In Mikitivity water law such a phrase would be equated with "recreational" uses ... and I'm not convinced (yet) that this should be the focus of a resolution declaring water a human "civil" right. The reason recreational uses might not be considered an inherent civil right, is there are well known health and safety issues that are related to full body contact with drinking water resources. In many semi-arid and arid nations that my corporation has consulted for we've designed extensive water conveyence and storage facilities (canals and reservoirs). Traditionally civil engineers have incorporated recreational facilities around drinking water supply reservoirs, but in recent years we've discovered that humans (and bears ... Gletscher Engineering has also worked in Bears Armed to aid our ursine allies build better watercourses ... they really love water parks and streams that support healthy anadromous fish species) are unfortunately a significant vector (point of entry) for various biological water contaminants.

Is it possible for us to perhaps acknolwedge that governments have a justification to *restrict* body contact with drinking water supplies? A way we might do this would be to assert that there are both recreational, environmental, municipal, industrial, and finally agricultural needs for water resources and that international water resources management should be mindful of all downstream water users. This might represent a significant change in the entire idea here, so I'll leave my comments at this point for now.

Thank you,
David Mercer, P.E.
Principal Engineering
Gletscher Engineering -- Division of Water Resources Planning
Miervatia, Mikitivity

First, subclauses a and be talk about the need for "enjoyment" of water resources. In Mikitivity water law such a phrase would be equated with "recreational" uses
It's likely that he meant enjoy as in "possess and benefit from", not enjoy as in "take pleasure in". Nevertheless, you raise a good point. It might be best to use some other term so as to avoid confusion.

It's likely that he meant enjoy as in "possess and benefit from", not enjoy as in "take pleasure in". Nevertheless, you raise a good point. It might be best to use some other term so as to avoid confusion.

The nations I've worked in often use the term "beneficial use". I'd recommend changing it to use that term. :)

-D.Mercer

OOC: It is the term used in California, Colorado, Arizona ... and possibly other US Western States. Unfortunately the water community does not command a good presence on-line (I've only begun entering western water concepts on Wikipedia), but I did dig this up:

http://wwa.colorado.edu/resources/water_law.html

The article gets into prior appropriate (which is basically "first in time, first in right"), but in RL international water law an even simplier rule virtually always wins out "possesion is nine tenths of the law". That means countries like Mexico and Iraq get screwed by upstream watersheds (the US and Turkey).

Anyways, for what we are doing, I think the term "beneficial use" still works nicely and *is* not imply we are adopting any particular water law convention, but that we are literally going to assert that water should be used beneficially for all. :)

Water as a human right?

1) One could argue that since access to safe water is a fundamental human need it could be considered, therefore, a basic human right. Without water, there is no human rights.

2) You could argue that Human rights are a result of internationally guaranteed standards that ensure the fundamental freedoms and dignity of individuals and communities. In effect, it would become a human right because the international community would deem it so.

3) Ignoring 2), Human rights can also exist independently of international law by being part of actual and fundamental human moralities. All human groups have moralities, that is, imperative norms of behavior backed by reasons and values. These moralities contain specific norms (e.g., a prohibition of the intentional murder of an innocent person) and specific values (e.g., valuing human life.) One way in which human rights could exist apart from divine or human enactment is as norms accepted in all or almost all actual human moralities. If almost all human groups have moralities containing norms prohibiting murder, these norms could constitute the human right to life. Human rights can be seen as basic moral norms shared by all or almost all accepted human moralities. I'd say that having access to life/water is a broadly accepted is a basic moral norm, and thus this right could exist as a right outside of international law already because it is a broadly accepted social norm.

In effect, the right to water may already exist as a right because it is already recognised as a broadly accepted social norm. This legislation would seek to enshrine that implicit and broadly recognised social norm as a right in international law.

4) Access to water has many knock on effects to other rights. Water is required for a range of different purposes, besides personal and domestic uses, to realize many of the Covenant rights. For instance, water is necessary to produce food (right to adequate food) and ensure environmental hygiene (right to health).Water is essential for securing livelihoods (right to gain a living by work) and enjoying certain cultural practices (right to take part in cultural life).

It is the opinion of our government that your government enacts too many rights that ultimately beg the question - what is it about a right that makes it a right in the first place? Is anyone endowed a right to life - not to speak of abortion, but that every person has a right to live and exist?

It is the opinion of our government that your government enacts too many rights that ultimately beg the question - what is it about a right that makes it a right in the first place? Is anyone endowed a right to life - not to speak of abortion, but that every person has a right to live and exist?

I'd say point 2 answers your questions :)

Hello,OOC:I do recall meaning to talk to you prior to putting the draft on here. I did remember you were something of a guru on water.
First, subclauses a and be talk about the need for "enjoyment" of water resources. In Mikitivity water law such a phrase would be equated with "recreational" uses ... and I'm not convinced (yet) that this should be the focus of a resolution declaring water a human "civil" right. The reason recreational uses might not be considered an inherent civil right, is there are well known health and safety issues that are related to full body contact with drinking water resources.Enjoyment was not mean in a entertainment context, but rather primarily one of survival, (i.e drinking it) and secondarily for cultural practices. I agree this is not clear.

In many semi-arid and arid nations that my corporation has consulted for we've designed extensive water conveyence and storage facilities (canals and reservoirs). Traditionally civil engineers have incorporated recreational facilities around drinking water supply reservoirs, but in recent years we've discovered that humans (and bears ... Gletscher Engineering has also worked in Bears Armed to aid our ursine allies build better watercourses ... they really love water parks and streams that support healthy anadromous fish species) are unfortunately a significant vector (point of entry) for various biological water contaminants.Both accidental and intentional, I agree.

Is it possible for us to perhaps acknolwedge that governments have a justification to *restrict* body contact with drinking water supplies? A way we might do this would be to assert that there are both recreational, environmental, municipal, industrial, and finally agricultural needs for water resources and that international water resources management should be mindful of all downstream water users. This might represent a significant change in the entire idea here, so I'll leave my comments at this point for now.On a national level, this is already covered, clause b). On an international level......this is probably covered under b), but may need to be more explicit.

MANDATES member states shall:
a) respect the right to water, by refraining from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of the right to water for anyone;
b) protect the right to water, by preventing 3rd parties from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of the right to water for anyone;


Doesn't any extraction of water, for any use, reduce the amount that's available downstream and thus [technically speaking] interfere with the rights that these clauses try to guarantee to the people living downstream from the extractors?

Don't clauses A and B ban purification of a town water system, because that interferes with the right to water?

Ellen Perionas
Director, Suboffice of Technical Legislative and Legal Matters, Ceorana UN Office

Don't clauses A and B ban purification of a town water system, because that interferes with the right to water?Would a water system stop the enjoyment/"benefical use" of the right to water for anyone?

I can't see how. In fact purification benefits. It means there is safe water to enjoy. In fact I'd say i) and h) encourage water systems.

Doesn't any extraction of water, for any use, reduce the amount that's available downstream and thus [technically speaking] interfere with the rights that these clauses try to guarantee to the people living downstream from the extractors?No more than is already happening. However, vulnerable and marginalized groups should receive additional benefits from this legislation.

The problem about beneficial uses is that for some types of uses they do in fact decrease streamflow. For example, the city of Miervatia uses the Risden River for its water supply ... while the vast majority of the Risden water is returned to the river *at a later date*, a very small percentage is used in gardening. (Bear in mind, that Mikitivity is water rich and agricultural poor ... so it is not the best example I could use, but being Miervatian it is the one I can use with no conflict of interest.)

The percentage of water that is removed from the water at Miervatia is no longer available for use by downstream communities.

In a water rich environment, this is not a problem. However, in semi-arid or agricultural intensive regions, beneficial uses will compete with one another. So if Mikitivity where to attempt to grow cotton or rice, Sober Thought would suddenly be facing a shortage of water ... and yet Mikitivity's use of Risden water to clothe and feed its own population could easily be described as "beneficial".

D.Mercer

First, may I commend you on your choice of subject. Water is the number one resource in the world and, even as a self proclaimed sovereigntist, I believe that water is very much an international issue. I have thought of trying my hand at a water law proposal myself.

My main concern is the integration of this proposal with exciting water rights. I would like to see the proposal “MANDATE” that existing water rights of individual countries will not be infringed upon. This may be hard to word so that the goals of the right to water resolution are met but, knowing how important water is to everyone, just taking someone’s excising water rights will cause major problems.

First, may I commend you on your choice of subject. Water is the number one resource in the world and, even as a self proclaimed sovereigntist, I believe that water is very much an international issue. I have thought of trying my hand at a water law proposal myself.

My main concern is the integration of this proposal with exciting water rights. I would like to see the proposal “MANDATE” that existing water rights of individual countries will not be infringed upon. This may be hard to word so that the goals of the right to water resolution are met but, knowing how important water is to everyone, just taking someone’s excising water rights will cause major problems.

What if there were two clauses that addressed this idea ... the first clause might be something like "RECOGNIZES existing water use and rights on international water bodies" and the second might be "ENCOURAGES nations that share watersheds to see to it that the flow in the watershed is put to beneficial use for all the nations within the watershed". The other ideas that the ambassador from Hirota has set up could be worked into this idea.

Of course this is assuming that UN resolutions can do this. I'm not a legal expert. ;)

- D.Mercer

"RECOGNIZES existing water use and rights on international water bodies" and the second might be "ENCOURAGES nations that share watersheds to see to it that the flow in the watershed is put to beneficial use for all the nations within the watershed".

I think that will work well enough. Although you should add “international and national" to the RECOGNIZES field. As it reads, the proposal would actually better enforce existing international water rights. But, even if there is some small conflict with an individual nation’s law, all must be willing to make some concessions. Water is too important to not be willing to make compromises.


I’m not a water lawyer myself, but I am a little familiar with water law. I find it quite entertaining.

And here is draft 2.

Not much has changed. I've added bits and made changes (which are in bold)

Kudos to Miktivity and Kethland for their suggestions.

NOTING that Water is essential for life;

CONCERNED that many people face water shortages on an alarmingly regular basis;

NOTING a substantial shortfall in availability of potable water;

NOTING that access to safe water is a fundamental need, and therefore a basic human right;

AWARE of existing water use and rights on international and national water bodies;

ASPIRING that:
a) each person has the right to a water supply that is sufficient and continuous for personal and domestic uses, such as drinking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation, personal and household hygiene.
b) each person is also entitled to water of adequate quality.
c) water should be accessible to all, in terms of location, economic accessibility and indiscriminate

MINDFUL that limitations of resources make these aspirations difficult or impossible in the short and medium term;

MANDATES member states shall:
a) respect the right to water, by refraining from interfering directly or indirectly with the beneficial use of the right to water for anyone;
b) protect the right to water, by preventing 3rd parties from interfering directly or indirectly with the beneficial use of the right to water for anyone;
c) ensure best possible access to the minimum essential amount of water, that is sufficient and safe for personal and domestic uses to prevent disease
d) ensure the right of access to water and water facilities and services on a non-discriminatory basis, especially for disadvantaged or marginalized groups
e) ensure best possible physical access to water facilities or services that provide sufficient, safe and regular water; that have a sufficient number of water outlets to avoid prohibitive waiting times; and that are at a reasonable distance from the household
f) ensure personal security is not threatened when accessing water
g) ensure best possible equitable distribution of all available water facilities and services
h) adopt relatively low-cost targeted water programmes to protect vulnerable and marginalized groups
i) take measures to prevent, treat and control diseases linked to water, in particular ensuring access to adequate sanitation

OBLIGES member states to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, to the maximum of its available resources, with a long term objective of achieving accessible water supplies of adequate quality,

REMINDS member states that they have a ongoing duty to progress as effectively as possible towards the full realisation of the right to water;

URGES member states to assist and co-operate with the international community, such as sharing best practices and expertise.

URGES member states co-operate in good faith to ensure the best possible accessibility of water to all, irrespective of nationality;

RESERVES member states margin of discretion to fulfil their obligations under this legislation

I believe that access to water is a right worthy of enshrining. The proposal in its current form is likely to receive my support, though there may be amendments necessary that I am not qualified to determine.

Benedictions,

Submitted. First post has link to proposal in queue, but is reposted here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Water).

Approved. Good luck with this, it's a worthy proposal.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/pay.jpg

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/pay.jpg

As a human rights proposal, the cost is ultimately going to come from individual nations or in some cases regional organizations, as they work together to see to it that rights outlined in the "Mandates" activating clauses are realized by citizens of those nations.

If your nation already has good water management practices, then it is my government's belief that your nation won't have to make any drastic changes.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC: Resolutions and daily issues do not take into account the RPed status of the degree to which any topic is already addressed ... hence the absurd tax rates many of our nations get.

Given you can pretty much do zip and still be in compliance, I'm not convinced cost is an issue. This amuses me greatly, though:

d) ensure the right of access to water and water facilities and services on a non-discriminatory basis, especially for disadvantaged or marginalized groups
We should discriminate in providing a non-discriminatory service. Right...

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

We should discriminate in providing a non-discriminatory service. Right...Whilst it could be said that there is a circular logic about this, Positive discrimination is used in all walks of life. Heck, you could say most of the resolutions on here positively discriminate in favour of someone.

The reason for this section is that in many cases, marginalized groups have a far poorer access to clean water than non-marginalized groups

You are proposing positive discrimination in the very same clause you enjoin us not to permit any discrimination.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Etc.

You are proposing positive discrimination in the very same clause you enjoin us not to permit any discrimination.It was too early this morning to see your point. A couple cups of coffee and I'm up and running.

That's not what it says. It says don't discriminate. Especially don't discriminate disadvantaged or marginalized groups.

Like I said, there is a certain circular logic about it.

Yes. We don't intend on supporting such an illogical proposal.

Yes. We don't intend on supporting such an illogical proposal.<shrugs>You've had plenty of time to read it.

It was too early this morning to see your point. A couple cups of coffee and I'm up and running.

That's not what it says. It says don't discriminate. Especially don't discriminate disadvantaged or marginalized groups.

Like I said, there is a certain circular logic about it.

We're sorry, but we see no logic in this, circular or otherwise. If you prohibit discrimination, you prohibit discrimination. Period. "No smoking. Especially no smoking Winstons."

Also, meaning no disrespect, but the draft is badly in need of careful proofreading to remove errors in grammar, punctuation, and word usage.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I'm willing to hear improvements, as I have been for the last 25 days :)

It was too early this morning to see your point. A couple cups of coffee and I'm up and running.

That's not what it says. It says don't discriminate. Especially don't discriminate disadvantaged or marginalized groups.

Like I said, there is a certain circular logic about it.

I believe our collegues from Gruenberg and Ausserland aren't arguing the intent of that particular clause, but rather are asking the clause just say, "Don't discriminate." Language can be drafted to essentially say, "REALLY don't dscrimintate."

OOC:
It is pepsi or milk that I use to jump start my day.

I believe our collegues from Gruenberg and Ausserland aren't arguing the intent of that particular clause, but rather are asking the clause just say, "Don't discriminate." Language can be drafted to essentially say, "REALLY don't dscrimintate."
That's how it interpreted their statements as well. They weren't saying "this is garbage, we hate you", but rather "this should be rephrased".

Hirota, if it doesn't reach quorum on this attempt you can rework that clause rather easily. I understand your logic there but it wouldn't hurt to just make it say "don't discriminate, ever".

Here would be my suggestion:

"d) ensure the right of access to water and water facilities and services on a non-discriminatory basis, especially for disadvantaged or marginalized groups"

|
|
v

"d) ensure the right of access to water and water facilities and services on a non-discriminatory basis"

Here would be my suggestion:

"d) ensure the right of access to water and water facilities and services on a non-discriminatory basis, especially for disadvantaged or marginalized groups"

|
|
v

"d) ensure the right of access to water and water facilities and services on a non-discriminatory basis"That's fine, consider it done pending re-submission.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/pay.jpg

In other situations we might agree with the honourable representative of Cluichstan; far too often, the authors of proposals forget that there are poor, underdeveloped countries with very little to spare in the way of funds.

In this particular instance, however, the right to water is fundamental enough to override any such concerns, in our opinion. If a government does not allocate funds to ensure that its people have access to drinkable water - that is, to survival - then when should it ever spend money?

This proposal has our support.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA