Abstract
Resolutions in the United Nations Human Rights Council and General Assembly provide clarification of economic, social, and cultural (ESC) rights, and most of these resolutions pass by consensus. Yet these resolutions are more contentious than they appear. This article analyzes a case study of contestation over resolutions on two ESC rights: water and sanitation. Drawing from theories of norms contestation, this article analyzes how the USA, UK, and Canada challenged the creation of the rights to water and sanitation as rights and as norms. An analysis of all resolutions, archival research, and interview data reveals that while challengers failed to stop water and sanitation from becoming legal human rights, they successfully delayed the process and weakened the normative aspect of the rights. The findings show that while powerful actors may not be opposed to ESC rights in theory, they worked to keep these rights weak and aspirational.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For example, research on reservations, understandings, and declarations are forms of contestation to established international treaties (Hill 2016).
A right is aspirational when it lacks legally binding status, carries no legal recourse, and serves more as a guide for policy (Cole 2013: 173).
These data were drawn from a database developed by Joel Voss at the University of Toledo, the Universal Rights Group’s database on Council and UNGA Third Committee resolutions, video recordings of Council and UNGA sessions, and Council and UNGA official reports on votes.
This research was reviewed and received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.
While it is not possible to report on the substance of informal meetings, interviews and analysis of public statements presents a picture of the grounds for challenges to these resolutions by a handful of powerful states.
Future research could explore the motives for abstentions by other states on the early resolutions on the HRtWS. These are not explored in depth here, as many abstentions to the 2010 UNGA resolution were procedural rather than substantive (see Winkler 2014: 77–78). One area of substantive dispute is the issue of transboundary water—see footnote 10.
Louise Arbour, quoted in De Souza 2008.
A long-time water activist and author, Barlow writes of the human right to water as a tool to push back against water commodification both in Canada and abroad (see Barlow 2013).
Other countries including Egypt, Argentina, India, China, and Turkey also expressed opposition to the HRtWS language, mainly due to concerns over transboundary water issues. Their opposition was less consistent and vocal compared to the USA, UK, and Canada (Personal interview 4 April 2016). While transboundary water issues were a point of contention in multiple resolution negotiations, interviews and archival research did not provide sufficient data to allow for inclusion in this analysis. However, this is a key area for future research.
This document is missing in the online repository.
The explanation of the position does not list what language the USA considers to be too broad or too specific.
See https://www.un.org/en/ga/third/68/List_of_Co_Sponsors_Third_Committee_68.pdf for list of co-sponsors.
The original resolution also called for considering the HRtWS in the Sustainable Development Goals post-2015 development agenda. This language was also challenged and ultimately weakened by the USA.
The only other challenge to this resolution came from South Africa, who argued that the language urging development partners to adopt a human rights-based approach to water was too weak, and that a “right to development” approach would be stronger and preferable (United Nations 2014).
In the 2016 and 2018 resolution negotiations, Kyrgyzstan proposed oral amendments, both of which were voted on and rejected. Kyrgyzstan called for a vote on both resolutions and voted No. The oral amendment sought to clarify that the HRtWS carries no obligations from one state to another. Kyrgyzstan raised similar concerns at the UNGA 2017 resolution, but was unable to change the resolution language (United Nations 2017). These amendments suggest that Kyrgyzstan might be concerned about protecting its own water resources, as Kyrgyzstan has more natural water resources than its neighbors (Qobil 2016).
While Kyrgyzstan has challenged the last few resolutions on the HRtWS, they have not been a sustained challenger over the years.
References
Aberbach J, Rockman B (2002) Conducting and coding elite interviews PS: Political Science and Politics 35: 673–676.
Amnesty International (2013) United Nations: General Assembly makes progress on the human rights to water and sanitation, but only so far as the USA permits. www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/IOR40/005/2013/en
Alston P (2009) Putting economic, social, and cultural rights back on the agenda of the United States. Center for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper No. 22.
Amnesty International (2010) United Nations: All states must support rights to water and sanitation at the Human Rights Council. 28 September 2010. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/017/2010/en/
Amnesty International (2012) United Nations: States must recognise and not undermine the content of the rights to water and sanitation. 29 October 2012. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior41/020/2012/en/
Baer M (2017a) The human right to water and sanitation: Champions and challengers in the fight for new rights acceptance. In Brysk A and Stohl M (eds) Expanding human rights: 21st century norms and governance. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 94-114
Baer M (2017b) Stemming the tide: Human rights and water policy in a neoliberal world. Oxford University Press, New York.
Barlow M (2013) Blue future: Protecting water for people and the lanet forever. The New Press, New York.
Bloomfield A (2016) Norm antipreneurs and theorizing resistance to normative change. Review of International Studies 42: 310–333.
Blue Planet Project (2012) UPDATE: Canada leads the assault to have the right to water removed from the World Water Forum ministerial declaration. https://www.blueplanetproject.net/index.php/update-canada-leads-the-assault-to-have-the-right-to-water-removed-from-the-world-water-forum-ministerial-declaration/
Bob C (ed) (2009) The international struggle for new human rights. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Bob C (2012) The global right wing and the clash of world politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brysk A (2009) Global good samaritans. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Brysk A and Stohl M (2017) Expanding human rights: 21st century norms and governance. Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Busby K (2016) Troubling waters: Recent developments in Canada on international law and the right to water and sanitation. Canadian Journal of Human Rights 5(1): 1-26.
Chapman A (1996) A ‘violations approach’ for monitoring the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 18(1): 23-66.
Cole W (2013) Strong walk and cheap talk: The effect of the International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights on policies and practices. Social Forces 92(1): 165-194.
Collins L (2010) Environmental rights on the wrong side of history: Revisiting Canada’s position on the human right to water. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 19 (3): 351-365.
De Albuquerque and Roaf V (2020) The human rights to water and sanitation. In: Dugard et al (eds) Economic, social and cultural rights as human rights. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 202–226.
De Souza M (2008) UN rejects water as basic human right: The Harper government can declare victory after a United Nations meeting rejected calls for water to be recognized as a basic human right. CanWest MediaWorks (25 March 2008). http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=b65b35fd-477f-4956-98f4-c17a46fe3e26>. Cited in Collins 2010: 351
Deitelhoff N and Zimmermann L (2020) Things we have lost in the fire: how different types of contestation affect the validity of international norms. International Studies Review 22: 51-76.
Deitelhoff N and Zimmermann (2019) Norms under challenge: Unpacking the dynamics of norm robustness. Journal of Global Security Studies 4(1): 2-17.
Deen T (2012) Rio+20: Canada, last holdout, drops opposition to human right to water. Inter Press Service News Agency. http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/06/rio20-canada-last-holdout-drops-opposition-to-water-as-human-right/
Diebel L (2008) Canada foils UN water plan. The Star. 2 April 2008. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/04/02/canada_foils_un_water_plan.html
Eide A (2000) Economic and social rights. In: Symonides J (ed) Human rights: Concepts and standards. Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington, pp 109-174
Ellis, K and Feris, L (2014) The right to sanitation: Time to delink from the right to water. Human Rights Quarterly 36(3): 607-629.
Felice W (2010) The global new deal: Economic and social human rights in world politics (2nd ed.) Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.
Felner E (2009) Closing the “escape hatch”: A toolkit to monitor the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights. Journal of Human Rights Practice 1(3): 402-435.
Finnemore M and Sikkink K (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52: 897–917.
Foreign & Commonwealth Office (2012) “The human right to sanitation” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/36541/human-right-sanitation270612.pdf
Freedman R and Mchangama J (2016) Expanding or diluting human rights? The proliferation of United Nations Special Procedures mandates. Human Rights Quarterly 38(1): 164-193.
Fukuda-Parr S, Lawson-Remer T, Randolph S (eds) (2015) Fulfilling social and economic rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
General Comment No. 15 (2002) The right to water, adopted 20 Jan. 2003, U.N. ESCOR, Comm. on Econ., Soc. & Cult. Rts., 29th Sess., U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11
Hertel S and Minkler L (2007) Economic rights: Conceptual, measurement, and policy issues. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Human Rights Council (2010) Human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Resolution A/HRC/15/L.14. http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/15/L.14
Human Rights Council (2011) Report of the Human Rights Council on its fifteenth session (A/HRC/15/60), 31, October 2011. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session15/Pages/15RegularSession.aspx
Human Rights Council (2013) The human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. A/HRC/RES/24/18. https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/24/18
Hunt P (2017) Configuring the UN human Rrghts system in the “era of implementation”: Mainland and Archipelago. Human Rights Quarterly 39: 489-538.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (1976) New York and Geneva: United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Jurkovich M (2020) What isn’t a norm. International Studies Review 22: 693-711.
Kang S (2009) The unsettled relationship of economic and social rights and the West: A response to Whelan and Donnelly. Human Rights Quarterly 31(4): 1006-1029.
Karunananthan M (2015) UPDATE: Post 2015 negotiations. Water Justice Listserv, 21 July, 2015.
Kirkup A and Evans T (2009) The myth of Western opposition to economic, social, and cultural rights? A reply to Whelan and Donnelly. Human Rights Quarterly, 31(1): 221-238.
Langford, M (2006) Ambition that overleaps itself? A response to Stephen Tully’s critique of the General Comment on the right to water. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 24(3): 433-459
Langford, M and Winkler, I (2014) Muddying the water? Assessing target-based approaches in development cooperation for water and sanitation. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 15(2-3): 247-260
Merali I and Oosterveld V (2001) Giving meaning to economic, social, and cultural rights (Pennsylvania studies in human rights). University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Minkler L (ed) (2013) The state of economic and social human rights: A global overview. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Nelson P (2009) Local claims, international standards, and the human right to water. In C. Bob (Ed.), The international struggle for new human rights (130-140). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Price R (1998) Reversing the gun sights: Transnational civil society targets land mines. International Organization 52: 613–44.
Qobil R (2016) Will Central Asia fight over water? BBC News. 25 October, 2016. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37755985
Reiding H (2012) Netherlands gradually changing views on international economic and social rights protection. Human rights Quarterly 34(1): 113-140.
Reiners N (2021) Despite of because of contestation? How water became a human right. Human Rights Quarterly 43(2): 329-343.
Richardson L (2015) Economic, social and cultural rights (and beyond) in the UN Human Rights Council. Human Rights Law Review 15: 409–440.
Riedel E, Giacca G, and Golay C (eds) (2014) Economic, social, and cultural Rights in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Robinson M and Hunt P (2006) Our duty by law is to make poverty history. New Zealand Herald, 10 May, 2006. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10381162
Sandholtz and Stiles (2009) International norms and cycles of change. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sandholtz W (2019) Norm contestation, robustness, and replacement. Journal of Global Security Studies 4 (1): 139–146.
Tully, S (2005) A human right to access to water? A critique of General Comment No. 15. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 23(1): 35–63.
United Nations (2014) A/HRC/27/L.11/Rev.1 Vote Item:3 - 39th Meeting 27th Regular Session Human Rights Council. http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/human-rights-council/regular-sessions/watch/ahrc27l.11rev.1-vote-item3-39th-meeting-26th-regular-session-human-rights-council/3806242330001
United Nations (2017) Press release: Third Committee approves 11 draft resolutions, as tensions around safe drinking water, youth policies force recorded votes on previously agreed language. https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/gashc4222.doc.htm
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2010) 108th Plenary Meeting 28 July 2010. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/64/PV.108
UK Statement (2010) Interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque. 15th Session of the Human Rights Council. http://extranet2.ohchr.org/Extranets/HRCExtranet/portal/page/portal/HRCExtranet/15thSession/OralStatements/150910/Tab2/Tab/Item3-ID2-United%20Kingdom.pdf
U.S. Explanation of Position, HRC 18 – Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation Resolution
US Human Rights Network (2015) Letter to Secretary Kerry on UNGA Res. on Water. https://www.ushrnetwork.org/resources-media/letter-secretary-kerry-unga-res-right-water
U.S. Mission Geneva (2012) Explanation of position: Water and sanitation. https://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/09/27/explanation-of-position-water-and-sanitation/
U.S. Mission Geneva (2013) Explanation of position: The human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. https://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/09/27/eop-the-human-right-to-safe-drinking-water-and-sanitation/
U.S. Mission Geneva (2014) Explanation of position: The human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. https://geneva.usmission.gov/2014/09/25/explanation-of-position-the-human-right-to-safe-drinking-water-and-sanitation/
Voss M J (2018) Contesting sexual orientation and gender Identity at the UN Human Rights Council. Human Rights Review 19(1): 1-22.
Voss M J (2019) The use (or misuse) of amendments to contest human rights norms at the UN Human Rights Council. Human Rights Review20: 397–422.
WASH United and Amnesty International (2015) Recognition of the human rights to water and sanitation by UN member states at the international level. http://www.wash-united.org/files/wash-united/resources/States%27%20recognition_HRWS_WEB_2015.pdf
WASH United (2014) The human rights to water and sanitation: Overview of the September 2014 resolution of the Human Rights Council. http://www.wash-united.org/files/wash-united/resources/Overview_Resolution_HRC_web.pdf
Way S (2014) The “myth” and mystery of US history on economic, social, and cultural Rights: The 1947 “United States suggestions for articles to be Incorporated in an International Bill of Rights” Human Rights Quarterly 36(4): 869-897.
Whelan D and Donnelly J (2007) The West, economic and social rights, and the global human rights regime: Setting the record straight. Human Rights Quarterly, 29(4): 908-949.
Wiener A (2014) A theory of contestation. Springer, Berlin.
Wiener A (2018) Contestation and constitution of norms in global international relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Winkler I (2012) The human right to water: Significance, legal status and implications for water allocation. Hart Publishing, Oxford.
Winkler, I (2016) The human right to sanitation. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 37(4): 1331-1406.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The author did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The study was granted exemption by the Human Subjects Institutional Review Boards of San Diego State University and Occidental College. The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baer, M. Beyond Consensus: Contesting the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation at the United Nations. Hum Rights Rev 23, 361–383 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-022-00655-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-022-00655-3