NationStates Jolt Archive

Access to water is a prerequisite for the realisation of all other human rights, and essential for leading a life in dignity. A lack of access to a basic water supply and inadequate sanitation is one of the greatest causes to the spread of water-bourne diseases, dehydration and death.

This topic is dedicated to the implementation of legislation to ensure the World Assembly adopts a resolution recognising this fundamental human right.

Category is human rights - not sure about the strength.

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

Thank you for your time. I'm willing to hear any concerns, queries or suggests and hopefully address them accordingly.

Wouldn't the mandated requirement 'b', as currently written, completely prohibit any extraction of water from rivers/aquifers/etc for agricultural or industrial purposes?

Wouldn't the mandated requirement 'b', as currently written, completely prohibit any extraction of water from rivers/aquifers/etc for agricultural or industrial purposes?I would not have thought that it would not be the case.

"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;"

The intention of this section was to prevent 3rd parties from creating dams or altering the flow of water which would have the effect of denying the right to water.

I'd argue that agricultural and industrial purposes would be a beneficial use, for a start (of course that's providing that agricultural chemicals were not going to be dumped into the water source, for example), provided that the extraction is sustainable and measured.

I would not have thought that it would not be the case.

"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;"

The intention of this section was to prevent 3rd parties from creating dams or altering the flow of water which would have the effect of denying the right to water.

I'd argue that agricultural and industrial purposes would be a beneficial use, for a start (of course that's providing that agricultural chemicals were not going to be dumped into the water source, for example), provided that the extraction is sustainable and measured.
Hr'rmm, but wouldn't even "sustainable and measured" use reduce the amount of water available to people downstream, and wouldn't that technically "interfere with" their 'beneficial use of the right to water'?

Hr'rmm, but wouldn't even "sustainable and measured" use reduce the amount of water available to people downstream, and wouldn't that technically "interfere with" their 'beneficial use of the right to water'?In excess....yes of course. But as long as there is enough to go around, then no.

I would think that the issue of how a state manages its water, is different from the issue which arises when two or more states share an aquifer or hydrological system, and the latter should be the priority for the WA (although it would not affect island nations like Esperantujo 2, with no land frontiers.
Vladimir Kuiristo
Ambassador

In excess....yes of course. But as long as there is enough to go around, then no.Hokay, so how does this clause work if there isn't an excess? What if there's a serious drought, for example, would it allow any form of rationing? I'm not opposed to the idea, but I do think that that sort of situation needs to be considered... perhaps, simply, by the insertion of the word "unfairly" immediately after "interfering"?

I would think that the issue of how a state manages its water, is different from the issue which arises when two or more states share an aquifer or hydrological system, and the latter should be the priority for the WA (although it would not affect island nations like Esperantujo 2, with no land frontiers.
Vladimir Kuiristo
AmbassadorI recognise the need for legislation on this, and am considering how to insert the encouragement of multilateral agreements between member states.

Hokay, so how does this clause work if there isn't an excess? What if there's a serious drought, for example, would it allow any form of rationing? I'm not opposed to the idea, but I do think that that sort of situation needs to be considered... perhaps, simply, by the insertion of the word "unfairly" immediately after "interfering"?Thanks for your continued feedback on this. I'm happy to adopt the suggestion you have for this since it helps clarify the matter.

What happens if there is not enough water to supply every country in an area?

The law cannot compel an impossibility.