Reducing the gap between international water law and human rights law: The UNECE Protocol on Water and Health

International Community Law Review

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 267-285

  Tanzi, Attila ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

access to water and sanitation; compliance review; due diligence; human rights law; privatization; water law

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954804844     PISSN: 18719740     EISSN: 18719732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/187197310X513707     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. For a general treatment of "domestic jurisdiction", see for all, A.A. Caņado Trindade, "The DomesticJurisdiction of States in the Practice of the UN and Regional Organizations", International and ComparativeLaw Quarterly (1976) 715
2. G. Arangio-Ruiz, "Le domaine ŕserv́: l'organisation international e et le rapport entre droit international et droit interne", Recueil des Cours (1990-VI) 9
3. P.H. Gleick (ed.), Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World's Fresh Water Resources (1993), particularly at pp. 273-274.
4. United Nations, Commission on Sustainable Development, Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World, Report of the Secretary General, U.N. Doc. E/CN.17/1997/9 (1997), particularly at p. 25, paras. 67-68.
5. For a discussion on the relationship among watercourses and forests see N. Bankes, "InternationalWatercourse Law and Forests", Global Forests and International Environmental Law (1996) 137-144.
6. G. Goldenman, "Adapting to Climate Change: A Study of International Rivers and Their LegalArrangements", Ecology Law Quaterly (1990)743-748;
7. P.H. Gleick, "Water in the 21st Century", in Water in Crisis, supra footnote 2, at pp. 106-108.
8. S.C. McCaffrey, "The Evolution of the Law of International Watercourses", Austrian Journal ofPublic and International Law (1993), at pp. 103-106.
9. For early reviews of these problems, see S. Postel, "Dividing the Waters: Food Security, EcosystemHealth, and the New Politics of Scarcity", Worldwatch Paper 132, (September 1996), at pp. 26-35.
10. A. D. Tarlock, "International Water Law and the Protection of River System Ecosystem Integrity", BYU Journal of Public Law (1990), pp. 181
11. G. Francis, "Ecosystem Management",Natural Resources Journal (1993), pp. 315
12. L.A. Teclaff & E. Teclaff, "International Controlof Cross-Media Pollution - An Ecosystem Approach", in A.E. Utton & L.A. Teclaff (eds.),Transboundary Resources Law, Boulder, CO (1987), pp. 289 et seq.
13. For a broad discussion on the concept of "environmental security" applied to international fresh water resources see especially J. Brunnée & S.J. Toope, "Environmental Security and Freshwater Resources: A Case for International Ecosystem Law", Yearbook of International Environmental Law (1994), pp. 41 at pp. 41-52
14. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, June 14, 1992, 31 I.L.M., 1992, pp. 874
15. The Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro,3-14 June 1992), U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (1992).
16. Ibid., at p. 168, para. 18.8 (emphasis added).
17. See Principles 3 and 4 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, supra footnote 9.
18. As stated by J. Brunńe and S. Toope, through the concept of sustainable development "an ecologicaldimension is introduced [in international watercourse law] at least to the extent that human developmentmust, irrespective of transboundary impact, respect limits defined by what the environment cansustain" (supra, footnote 8, at p. 70).
19. Art. 2, para. 5, lett. c, of the 1992 UN/ECE Water Convention provides that "[w]ater resources shallbe managed so that the needs of the present generation are met without compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their own needs". As to the New York Convention, while its Preambleexpressly recalls "the principles and recommendations adopted by the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development of 1992 in the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21" (Para. 8), it codifiedthe principle of equitable utilization prescribing that "an international watercourse shall be used anddeveloped by watercourse States with a view to attaining optimal and sustainable utilization thereof andbenefits therefrom" (Art. 10, para. 2. See infra footnote 14). On sustainable development, possibly incombination with priority to be afforded to vital human needs, as a basic parameter for a balanced interpretationand application of the two basic principles of international water law,
20. A. Tanzi & M. Arcari, The U.N. Convention on International Watercourses. A Framework for Sharing (2000), at pp.108-115, 175, 300.
21. Art. 10, para. 2, of the 1997 New York Convention provides that "[i]n the event of a conflictbetween uses of an international watercourse, it shall be resolved with reference to articles 5 to 7, withspecial regard being given to the requirements of vital human needs".
22. A. Tanzi & M. Arcari, supra, footnote 13, pp. 136-140.
23. Ibid., at 139.
24. P.-M. Dupuy, "L'unit́ de l'ordre juridique International", Recueil des Cours (2002), pp. 9
25. M. Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law - Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission(2007).
26. By this resolution, the Human Rights Council decided to appoint Ms. Catarina de Albuquerque asIndependent Expert, for a period of three years, on the issue of human rights obligations related toaccess to safe drinking water and sanitation. The expert's tasks are to undertake a study on best practicesand human rights obligations related to water and sanitation, and submit a final report to the Council.This resolution has not only provided the UN human rights system with a separate mechanism exclusivelydedicated to issues related to the right to water and sanitation, but it has also confirmed that governmentshave obligations to ensure access to safe drinking water and sanitation under internationalhuman rights law. Moreover, resolution 12/8 on access to safe drinking water and sanitation calls uponStates to create an enabling environment to address the issue of lack of sanitation at all levels; to collect,at the appropriate levels, current, accurate and detailed information about sanitation coverage in thecountry; to develop, where appropriate, national and/or local plans of action, in order to address thelack of access to sanitation in a comprehensive way, giving due consideration to wastewater management,including treatment and reuse (see A/HUMAN RIGHTSC/RES/12/8 (2009), para. 4).
27. A.K. Biswas, E. Rached & C. Tortajad (eds.), Water as a Human Right for the Middle East andNorth Africa (2008).
28. P.-M. Dupuy, "Le droit á l'eau: droit de l'homme ou droit des États?", in M. Kohen(ed.), Promoting Justice, Human Rights and Conflict Resolution through International Law - La promotion de la justice, des droits de l'homme et du règlement des conflits par le droit international: liber amicorum Lucius Caflisch (2007);
29. E. Riedel (ed.), The Human Right to Water (2006)
30. K. Bourquain,Access from a Human Rights Perspective: a Challenge to International and Human Rights Law (2008).
31. M. Mancisidor, N. Uribe & C.A. Fernández-Jáuregui (eds.), The Human Right to Water: Current Situation and Future Challenges (2008).
32. http://www.UN/ECE.org/env/documents/2000/wat/mp.wat.2000.1.e.pdf.
33. http://www.UN/ECE.org/env/documents/2007/wat/wh/ece.mp.wh.2-add-3.e.pdf.
34. Emphasis added.
35. See doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (2003).
36. Para.38.
37. Lett. b. See also lett. f ) concerning the obligation that national water strategies and plans of action"shall give particular attention to all disadvantaged or marginalized groups".
38. Lett.k.
39. Lett.l.
40. Lett.n.
41. Lett f.
42. Ibid,.
43. Para.2.
44. Para.5.
45. Art.6, while Art. 2 on "Definitions", at para. 9, refers to " 'Collective system' [as] (a) A system forthe supply of drinking water to a number of households or undertakings; and/or (b) A system forthe provision of sanitation which serves a number of households or undertakings and, where appropriate,also provides for the collection, transport, treatment and disposal or reuse of industrial wastewater [. . .]".
46. Art.6,para. 3.
47. Supra, footnote 22.
48. Art.6,para. 5,lett.d.
49. Art.7.
50. Further to Art. 15 of the Protocol, the first MOP in 2007 adopted decision 1/2 on review of compliance,see doc. ECE/MP.WH/2/Add.3 - EUR/06/5069385/1/Add.3 (2007).
51. C. Pitea, "Procedures and Mechanisms for Review of Compliance under the 1999 Protocol onWater and Health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercoursesand International Lakes"
52. T. Treves. A. Tanzi, L. Pineschi, C. Pitea, C. Ragni, F. Romanin Jacur (eds.),Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements,(2009), pp. 251
53. See decision 1/2,para.11(a).
54. Ibid.,para.11(b).
55. Ibid.,para 11(c).
56. Ibid.,para 12.
57. See also ibid., para 34.
58. In addition, the MOP is afforded the power to take stronger measures, see decision 1/2, para. 35.
59. See decision 1/2, cit., chapter IV, para. 16 and draft rules of procedure of the Compliance Committee,para.24.
60. Moreover, in order to help members of the public in understanding the compliance mechanism and submitting communications, the Compliance Committee even elaborated "guidelineson communications from the public"(see www.unece.org/environment/water).
61. Art. 5, lett. m, reads as follows: "As a counterpart to their rights and entitlements to water under privatelaw and public law, natural and legal persons and institutions, whether in the public sector or in theprivate sector, should contribute to the protection of the water environment and the conservation ofwater resources".
62. Para. 39.
63. Supra text at footnote 45.
64. By "progressive obligation" corresponding to the right under consideration it is meant the obligationof progressive realization of the right in point in due diligence terms, as it will be explained below (seeinfra, text at footnotes 52-55).
65. Emphasis added.
66. M. Fitzmaurice, "The Human Right to Water", Fordham Environmental Law Review (2007) 537et seq., at 541.
67. S. McCaffrey, "A Human Right to Water: Domestic and International Implications", GeorgetownInternational Environmental Law Review (1992) 12 et seq. and the authorities quoted therein.
68. CESCR Comment n. 3, adopted at the Fifth Session of the Committee on Economic, Social andCultural Rights, on 14 December 1990, Doc. E/1991/23 (1991), para 1.
69. Ibid., para. 2.
70. Ibid., para. 9.
71. See R.P. Barnidge, Jr., "The Due Diligence Principle Under International Law", International CommunityLaw Review (2006) 81-121.
72. R. Pisillo Mazzeschi, "Forms of International Responsibility for Environmental Harm", in F. Francioni & T. Scovazzi (eds.), International Responsibility for Environmental Harm (1991), p. 19.
73. Pisillo Mazzeschi, still with reference to due diligence obligations in the field of environmental protection,with special regard to the obligations of prevention of harm, stressed how "[. . .] the general ruleon the flexibility of diligence regarding possible damage requires the State to exercise a particularly highdegree of diligence in prevention. In this case, the due diligence obligation strongly tends to approach anobligation of result: that is, to create a situation of presumption unfavorable to the damaging State. Inother words, the high degree of due diligence required of the State leads to an inversion of the burden ofproof; that is, unless there is proof to the contrary, the damaging State is considered as having breached itsown due diligence obligations" (ibid., p. 35.).
74. L. Condorelli, "L'imputation à l'Etat d'un fait internationalementillicite: solutions classiques et nouvelles tendances", Recueil des Cours (1984-VI), 165 et seq.,at 174 et seq.
75. Para. 10.
76. Art.6,para. 2.
77. Art.6,para.3.
78. Art.6,para.4.
79. Art.6,para 5,lett.c and d.
80. The issue of privatisation and water services, the general overview by M. Fitzmaurice, supra, atpp. 557-568. The topic is increasingly under discussion from various quarters
81. See, amongst others,F. Gómez Isa, "Water and Privatization : a Human rights Approach
82. M. Mancisidor, N. Uribe & C.A. Fernández-Jáuregui (eds.), op. cit., pp. 151
83. W. Vandenhole, "Water as a Human Right :Water as an Essential Service : Does it Matter?", Netherlands Quarterly of Human rights (2008), pp. 391
84. M. Williams, "Privatization and the Human Right to Water : Challenges for the New Century",Michigan Journal of International Law (2007), pp. 469
85. A. Kok, "Privatisation and the Right toAccess to Water", in K. De Feyter & F. Gómez Isa (eds.), Privatisation and Human rights in the Age ofGlobalisation, (2005), pp. 259
86. It may be noted that, in 2010, the Independent Expert of on theissue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation will concentrateher activity precisely on this topic, see http://www2.ohchuman rights.org/english/issues/water/iexpert/private-sector-participation.htm.
87. According to the international rules on attribution to the State of the conduct of its organs, as codifiedby the International Law Commission, endorse by the General Assembly in 2001
88. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commissionon the Work of Its Fifty-third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No.10, at 43, UN Doc.A/56/10 (2001), available at , at Art. 4.
89. Para.24.
90. Id.
91. Para.27.
92. Lett.g.
93. Ibid.lett.d.
94. Art.9 para.1 lett. b.
95. See above,Paragraphs 2 and 3.
96. Art.2,para.12.
97. As the AHPFM provides a useful framework for countries to request support in setting their targetsand target dates, it can be considered the key factor for a proper implementation of the Protocol. TheAHPFM is composed of two elements: a Facilitator and a Clearing House mechanism. The role of theformer is to identify strategic areas of International assistance, to review and analyse project proposalssubmitted by eligible countries and relevant NGOs, and to assist them in drawing up and streamliningthese proposals to meet the requirements of donor countries and organisations. The Clearing House isan open-ended body under the Meeting of the Parties with members from Parties and non-Parties (bothfrom donor and recipient countries) and from global and regional financing institutions, relevant internationalorganisations, competent international nongovernmental organisations and internationalfoundations with cooperation programmes of recognised importance for water and health. The ClearingHouse aims to identify priority activities of non-infrastructure intervention for countries with economiesin transition in certain areas and to assess the relevance of project proposals submitted the Facilitator.