UN General Comment No.15

The right to water was formally declared a human right for the first time in 2002. This declaration came in the form of the UN General Comment No.15. Maude Barlow suggests that the General Comment represents the UN’s recognition that right to water is the “cornerstone for realizing all other human rights…”. General Comment No.15 claims:

The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses. An adequate amount of safe water is necessary to prevent death from dehydration, to reduce the risk of water-related disease and to provide for consumption, cooking, personal and domestic hygienic requirements.

General Comment No.15 is a mechanism for providing interpretation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) - a treaty initiated in 1966 by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). As of September 2008, 159 states have ratified the ICESCR (excluding the United States whose Senate has failed to ratify the covenant). Besides self-reporting, however, there are no enforcement mechanisms to oversee state party obligations. As Alston and Quinn note, “in practice…considerable discretion is accorded to the state parties to determine for themselves which measures are appropriate and whether all such means have been pursued” (Alston & Quinn, 1987, p.162). Alston and Quinn suggest, “it is clear therefore that legislation is not mandatory under the terms of the covenant and that it is a matter for each state party to determine whether or not it is needed” (Alston & Quinn, 1987, p.167). The UN concedes stating “the ultimate effectiveness of this instrument is contingent on the measures taken by governments to give actual effect to their international legal obligations”.

The fact that some states abstain from ratifying UN treaties and covenants raises concerns not only over the legitimacy of these treaties and covenants, but it also sheds light on the extent to which these treaties and covenants have any legal significance whatsoever. Commenting on the legal insignificance of the General Comment No.15 Barlow suggests, “countries can ignore their responsibilities because there is no effective means of holding them to account”. Indeed, the legally insignificant status of many UN declarations, treaties and conventions is due in part to the unwillingness of participating states to ratify such treaties or conventions. For the most part, UN declarations, treaties and conventions that have legal binding status require voluntary state participation. And even if and when a state party recognizes such a treaty or convention they must ratify the agreement before they are obligated to meet treaty or convention targets”. As Desmond notes, “one of the most authoritative documents on human rights (UDHR)… is simply a statement of intent and is not legally binding even on those who signed it”. The UN itself, in fact, acknowledges this very point stating, “the term (declaration) is often deliberately chosen to indicate that the parties do not intend to create binding obligations but merely want to declare certain aspirations”. Thus, according to the UN, human rights, as stated in the world’s preeminent human rights document – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - amount to a set of aspirations and not a set of legally binding obligations. The failure to meet UN human rights aspirations is indicative of the nature of most UN declarations, treaties and conventions that not only require voluntary participation, but also do not have the appropriate enforcement mechanisms that would ensure legally binding status upon nation states.