Author: AM Tris Hardyanto

WATER AS A RIGHT , THE LEGAL AND MORAL PUSH AGAINST PRIVATISATION

As a series of Owning the Flow: Global Lessons from Water Acquisitions and Their Reversal

Water is life—but for decades, it has been bought, sold, and denied to those who need it most. As the tide turns against privatisation, a global movement is reclaiming water as a human right, not a market commodity. This article dives into the legal, moral, and political battles redefining water governance—and why access to water is a fight for justice, not just service.

Introduction

The issue of water privatisation and its intrinsic moral and legal implications has become increasingly central in global discussions surrounding environmental justice, human rights, and public policy. For centuries, water existed as a public good, and the contemporary trend towards commodification has incited significant backlash, invoking both ethical and legal considerations. A growing recognition of water as a fundamental human right has fueled response, thus reframing the narrative from one predominantly driven by economic interests to one predicated on dignity and social justice (Palmer et al., 2018).

In the historical context, communities around the world have witnessed the transition of water sources from freely accessible communal resources to profit-driven commodities largely under private control. Shift, often catalysed by neoliberal policy frameworks, signifies a dramatic departure from the traditional perspective on natural resources (Gerlak, 2011). As privatisation took its foothold, it became evident that the commodification of water not only undermines the public trust doctrine but also poses profound risks to public health and environmental sustainability (Bain et al., 2014). Recognition of water as a human right has thus emerged amongst various scholars and activists, indicating that access to water should not be subject to market forces, but rather safeguarded as a basic necessity for human survival and dignity (Meier et al., 2012).

Legal frameworks surrounding the right to water have undergone significant evolution, particularly evidenced by the United Nations' General Assembly resolutions acknowledging water as a human right, which serve to bolster its intrinsic value (Wahi, 2022). These resolutions elucidate the state's responsibility in ensuring safe and clean drinking water and sanitation for all, thereby affirming the notion that water is a social good and not merely an economic instrument (Bain et al., 2014). It is essential to understand that the legal enshrinement of water rights is not just about access to resources; it also encapsulates notions of equity, sustainability, and communal stewardship (Hiskes, 2010).

Grassroots movements have played an instrumental role in advocating for the recognition of water as a fundamental human right, highlighting the moral imperatives associated with access to clean water. Activists argue that water must be regarded both as a common heritage of humanity and as a human right, thus framing it within a context that champions social equity as well as environmental justice (Bakker, 2007). The link between perceived violations of water rights and political action underscores a psychological aspect of social movements, where moral imperatives galvanise communities to rally for their rights against privatisation policies (Mazzoni et al., 2013).

Moreover, Socio-economic conditions further complicate the debate surrounding the right to water by influencing access and equitable distribution(Ahmad & Lilienthal, 2021). Privileged groups often dominate resources, leaving marginalised communities to grapple with inadequate access resulting from systemic inequalities inherent in privatised water systems (Starzyk et al., 2021). Geopolitical factors exacerbate discrepancies, economic policies, and an overarching trend towards market solutions that complicate the provision of essential needs like water (Khadka, 2010). The acknowledgement of water as a human right can therefore serve as a powerful tool in promoting justice-oriented policies that rectify historical injustices (Meier et al., 2012).

Furthermore, the moral push against privatisation has also drawn attention to the impact of climate change on water resources. As water availability becomes increasingly precarious due to environmental changes, recognising the right to water not only aligns with social justice but also environmental stewardship (Palmer et al., 2018). Therein lies the importance of integrating water rights into broader environmental policies, emphasising the urgency to adopt sustainable practices that ensure both the preservation of resources and the protection of human rights (Fantini, 2019).

Activists argue that a profound reconceptualisation of water governance is needed; one that resists the privatisation narrative while promoting local control and stewardship over natural resources (Bakker, 2007). Such governance frameworks are embedded within broader societal values that recognise water as a social good, reaffirming commitments to equity and collective responsibility (Leb, 2012). Legal recognition of water as a human right becomes a lever for change, as seen in various anti-privatisation campaigns that advocate for publicly managed water frameworks, emphasising human dignity over profit maximisation (Gerlak, 2011).

In essence, the discourse around water as a right not only reflects a shift in understanding global challenges related to access and equity but also underscores the interconnectedness of human rights, environmental justice, and ethical responsibility. evolving narrative serves as a call for stakeholders at all levels to reimagine the governance of water resources, advocating for an approach that places justice at the forefront of water access and management (Khadka, 2010).

As we forge ahead, it is crucial for legal frameworks, community mobilisations, and international norms to align in a concerted effort that champions water as a fundamental right, ensuring that every individual has access to the essential resource without discrimination or economic barriers. The pursuit of justice in water rights encapsulates not merely a legal challenge but a profound moral imperative that resonates with humanity's shared values and collective existence (Starzyk et al., 2021).

In summary, the movement advocating for water as an inalienable right stands out not only for its legal and ethical implications but also for its capacity to galvanise communities worldwide toward a more just and equitable distribution of resources. Efforts to reclaim water governance from the grips of privatisation echo a larger narrative of human dignity and collective responsibility, emphasising that in the face of commodification, the right to water must be fought for and upheld as a testament to justice and solidarity among all peoples (Meier et al., 2012; , Palmer et al., 2018; , Ahmad & Lilienthal, 2021).

1 From Commodity to Citizenship: A Paradigm Shift

The shift from viewing water as a mere commodity to recognising it as a fundamental human right has profound implications for citizenship, state responsibilities, and societal values. The contemporary challenge posed by privatisation fundamentally questions the traditional role of governments as stewards of essential resources, transitioning from an obligation to provide universal access to clean water to a market-driven focus purely on profitability. Inversion forces societies to critically assess what citizens can legitimately demand from their governments in terms of necessities and social welfare. The ongoing debate over water privatisation serves as a testing ground for broader discourses surrounding citizenship, rights, and state accountability (Chng, 2008).

As privatisation expanded, it became clear that the privatisation of water services has substantially altered the foundational social contract between the state and its citizens. Trend reflects a shift from the notion of water being a public good to that of a tradable commodity, which often leads to prioritisation of profit over societal needs. In response, numerous courts around the world began to assert that access to clean water is indeed a fundamental human right, thus reinforcing the government's obligation to provide essential services rather than solely facilitating market transactions (Obani, 2015; Warner, 2008). Such legal precedents marked a significant transition in societal perspectives on the relationships between law, government, and critical resources, facilitating a more equitable approach to water access (Fuest & Haffner, 2007).

Various courtroom decisions across jurisdictions have established that water is not merely an optional service but a prerequisite for life, health, and dignity; acknowledgement is crucial in legally empowering citizens to seek equitable access to water and contest policies that prioritise profits over people (Hirvi, 2012). Additionally, in some countries, water rights have been entrenched within constitutional frameworks, ensuring that future legislatures and administrative bodies are compelled by law to uphold public access to water, thereby safeguarding it against commodification (Obani, 2015). These constitutional protections distinctly elevate water governance from being a mere policy preference to a mandated responsibility, fostering an environment where Governments inherently tie their accountability to safeguarding water rights (Warner, 2008).

Beyond transitory court rulings, a more robust international dialogue has emerged, leading to constitutional amendments that explicitly aim to protect public ownership of water resources. Such changes convey the message that access to water is indeed a right, not merely a privilege that can be bought or sold (Obani, 2015). On the global stage, organisations such as the United Nations have increasingly framed water access as not only a legal obligation but also a moral and developmental necessity. By promoting the notion of the right to water, these organisations have energised social movements advocating for dignity and equity, thereby uniting diverse global actors around a shared vision focused on justice and equal access (Budds et al., 2014; Muehlebach, 2023).

Moreover, the evolution of international norms surrounding water rights denotes a significant moral shift, one that positions water not just as an essential resource but as a crucial component of human dignity and social equity (Bakker, 2007). redefinition influences policy discussions, transitioning the narrative from mere affordability, where water is seen within a strict economic framework, to ensure accessibility, accountability, and the health of individuals and communities ("Water and Citizenship: The Privatisation of Water Resources and the Social Actors", 2015). As the legal and moral arguments for recognising water as a fundamental human right gain traction, it becomes increasingly clear that the discourse is not just about water provision; It closely connects to broader issues of social justice and inclusion.

Resistance to privatisation has been a critical aspect of the paradigm shift. Advocacy groups, grassroots movements, and activists have emerged as crucial players in redefining access to water as a social good, opposing the commercialisation of water services across various contexts. Collective resistance not only challenges the prevailing narratives around privatisation but also emphasises a shared vision of hydrosocial justice, where access to water aligns with citizenship rights and social equity. As public awareness grows, the mobilisation against privatisation often reflects broader movements advocating for systemic social change and inclusion, underscoring the vital link between environmental justice and human rights (Chng, 2008; Sande, 2020).

The legal transformations we observe compel us to rethink the implications of citizenship in the context of water access. No longer is citizenship defined solely by residence or legal status; rather, Observers increasingly regard it as contingent upon the fulfilment of social rights, of which access to water is fundamental. The affirmation of water as a human right integrates citizenship considerations, raising equity and welfare questions that compel governments to act and to be held accountable. Discussions surrounding the right to water thus highlight the flows of social responsibility from the state to its citizens, reinforcing the necessity to keep water services public or under strict regulation to prevent exploitation (Fuest & Haffner, 2007; Gearey et al., 2019).

Further, a paradigm shift necessitates expanding our understanding of citizenship to encompass civic engagement, active participation in governance, and collective action, particularly in communities disproportionately affected by privatisation. Involves not only contesting the status quo surrounding water management but also fostering new partnerships among diverse stakeholders, including local communities, governmental entities, NGOS, and private actors, within a framework that prioritises equity and access. As such, the conversation regarding water rights continues to evolve, emphasising a collaborative approach toward achieving universally accessible water while maintaining accountability and justice at its core.

Ultimately, the legal and moral advancements affirming the right to water illustrate a fundamental reconfiguration of the relationship between citizens and the state concerning essential resources. Reconfiguration calls for a commitment to promoting justice, equity, and dignity across society, necessitating active participation from individuals and communities to reaffirm their rights and advocate for essential services. As the emphasis on citizenship evolves alongside these legal transformations, the fight for equitable access to water surfaces as a powerful testament to the ongoing quest for human dignity and collective rights in the contemporary socio-political landscape ("WATER AND CITIZENSHIP: THE PRIVATISATION OF WATER RESOURCES AND THE SOCIAL ACTORS", 2015).

2 Uruguay – The World's First Constitutional Ban on Water Privatisation (2004)

In the early 2000s, Uruguay experienced a significant wave of public dissatisfaction with private water companies, marking a crucial turning point in the nation's water governance framework. Discontent stemmed from various interrelated issues, including escalating water prices, declining service quality, and a lack of accountability from corporate water providers. As these private entities prioritised profits over public welfare, citizens began to question whether profit-driven models could genuinely ensure access to essential resources like water (Tadeu et al., 2023). The climate of public frustration effectively set the stage for a national conversation about the future of water governance and the role of the state in safeguarding access to the vital resource.

The dissatisfaction experienced by the populace laid the groundwork for a broader debate on water governance in Uruguay, where citizens increasingly perceived private management as inadequate and misaligned with principles of social equity and human rights. The perception that privatisation compromised public health and environmental integrity galvanised public opinion against the status quo, fostering significant democratic deliberations about water governance (Trimble et al., 2022). Citizens rallied together, advocating for a more inclusive and equitable model of water management, aligning their concerns with broader social justice movements aimed at repositioning essential services within the public domain.

In 2004, a wave of civic discontent culminated in a historic nationwide referendum that posed a decisive question regarding the future of water services in Uruguay. The referendum engaged approximately 64% of the electorate and is regarded as a defining moment of popular sovereignty, affirming citizens' rights to determine their water governance structure. The democratic exercise saw broad support from unions, civil society organisations, and everyday citizens, reflecting a collective demand for greater control over essential resources (Taks, 2008). The successful outcome of the referendum underscored the power of public participation in reshaping national policy and highlighted the importance of water as both a social good and a foundational human right.

The constitutional amendment that emerged from the referendum marked a significant shift in Uruguay's legal framework surrounding water governance. It enshrined access to water and sanitation as fundamental human rights, mandating state provision of these services. Additionally, the amendment called for increased social participation in water management decisions, ensuring that the needs and perspectives of all citizens were adequately reflected (Fuest & Haffner, 2007). provision elevated the status of water governance from a matter of policy preference to a constitutional duty and paved the way for a participatory approach in water management processes, setting a noteworthy precedent for other nations to consider.

Uruguay's constitutional amendment established it as the first country in the world to constitutionally guarantee public water ownership and governance, illustrating the power of legal frameworks in protecting collective goods against market pressures. The amendment serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of safeguarding essential resources for future generations and emphasises the broader implications of enshrining social and environmental rights within national constitutions (Danso & Asmorowati, 2020). transformative process not only bolstered national pride but also positioned Uruguay as a leader in the global movement advocating for the human right to water, inspiring similar efforts in other countries facing privatisation challenges.

The decision to enshrine water ownership in the constitution resonates with international calls to recognise water as a basic human right. shift highlights the fundamental role of the state in ensuring equitable access to essential services, aligning with global efforts to reduce inequalities and promote social justice (Bakker, 2007). Uruguay's experience serves as a compelling case study on the critical importance of participatory governance in water management, showcasing how citizen engagement can drive meaningful change against corporate interests.

The implications of constitutional protection extend beyond domestic boundaries, potentially influencing international dialogues on water governance and human rights. As the global community grapples with acute water crises and challenges stemming from privatisation, Uruguay's approach provides a framework for reimagining how states can protect their citizens' rights to water and sanitation. The case underscores the importance of embedding social participation in water management and governance to ensure sustainability and equity in resource allocation.

Furthermore, the lessons learned from Uruguay's journey toward constitutional water protection highlight the interplay between social movements, legal frameworks, and democracy in the pursuit of social equity (Bidegaín, 2024). As countries reassess their water governance strategies amidst growing pressures from privatisation and climate change, the Uruguayan model presents an inspiring example of how legal mandates can intersect with democratic action to advance the common good. Ultimately, the significance of the constitutional amendment in Uruguay demonstrates the prioritisation of public welfare and human rights over profit motives, inviting consideration of similar pathways for ensuring water security in an increasingly privatised world (Taks, 2008).

3 Jakarta, Indonesia – Water Rights Restored by Supreme Court (2017)

The privatisation of water services in Jakarta, Indonesia, represents a critical episode illustrating the significance of access to water as a fundamental right and the consequences faced whenGovernments began transferring essential services to private entities in 1997, authorities framed the privatisation of Jakarta's water supply system as a strategy to enhance efficiency and service quality. However, undertaking soon became controversial, as many residents faced diminished access to water, inferior service quality, and escalating costs, which led to a significant erosion of public trust in water providers (Leong, 2015). The emphasis on profit by private operators overshadowed their responsibility to ensure equitable access and the welfare of the communities they served.

As discontent among the populace grew, it prompted widespread criticism of privatisation, especially concerning its risks to low-income communities predominantly affected by these failures. Critics highlighted that privatisation led to stark inequalities and social injustices in access to essential services, challenging the assumption that market forces could efficiently meet public needs (Colven, 2022). These failures ultimately ignited calls for a change in governance and the need to reclaim control over water resources for the community's benefit.

In response to these pressing issues, a coalition of public interest groups initiated a legal challenge against the privatisation framework. They asserted that the arrangement violated citizens' rights to water, a right enshrined within Article 33 of the Indonesian Constitution, which emphasises state control over vital resources. Legal challenges reflect a significant global trend where courts are increasingly used to uphold social rights and resist corporate dominance over essential public services. By advocating for the recognition of water as a human right within the legal system, these grassroots mobilisations demonstrated the potential of collective action to enact substantial changes in public policy (Iristian, 2023).

The culmination of these efforts came in 2017 when the Indonesian Constitutional Court delivered a landmark ruling declaring water privatisation unconstitutional. The Court's decision concluded that the privatisation contravened the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens to access water (HAN & DEMİRBİLEK, 2022). Judicial determination was not merely a legal victory but also marked a broader renewal of public control over water management, effectively restoring the principle that access to water is a fundamental human right. The ruling established a powerful legal precedent that emphasises the necessity of prioritising public interest and social justice in water governance, reaffirming the state's role as the protector and provider of essential services to all citizens (Leong, 2015).

The decision reinforced the interpretation of water rights as inherent to human dignity, emphasising that access to vital resource should not be contingent upon market-driven forces. By invoking the constitutional provision mandating state responsibility for vital resources, the Supreme Court's ruling illustrated how judicial systems could decisively advocate for equitable water governance. Ultimately, affirmation against water privatisation has contributed to a broader dialogue surrounding social justice and human rights in Indonesia and serves as an inspiring example for similar movements around the world confronting privatisation challenges.

Moreover, Jakarta's legal landscape reflects a growing recognition of the need for structural reforms that prioritise public welfare, equity, and the sustainable management of water resources over profit maximisation. The involvement of public interest groups and civil society is crucial, as they have become essential actors in pressuring the state to uphold and respect citizens' rights to water. Collaborative effort further illustrates the utility of legal frameworks in advocating for social rights, highlighting the importance of citizen engagement in shaping equitable governance structures (Iristian, 2023).

In conclusion, the history of water privatisation in Jakarta, combined with grassroots mobilisation for legal accountability, underscores the significance of reasserting public rights to essential resources against the backdrop of increasingly commodified services. The Supreme Court's decision represents a powerful endorsement of the idea that water is a human right, inherently tied to dignity and public welfare, and serves as an exemplary model for democratic participation in resource governance. The case not only redefines the relationship between citizens and the state concerning access to water but also stresses the importance of legal advocacy in protecting human rights and social justice in the contemporary era.

4 UN Recognition – Water as a Human Right (2010)

In 2010, a significant milestone in international human rights was achieved when the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 64/292, explicitly recognising the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation. Historic resolution underscored the view that access to water is essential to the realisation of all other human rights, thereby setting a new global standard for governments and international organisations alike. The resolution received overwhelming support, reflecting a widespread global consensus on the critical importance of water access and sanitation as fundamental human rights (Côrtes & Côrtes, 2021).

The adoption of Resolution 64/292 has profound implications for governments worldwide. It established both moral and international legal obligations, compelling states to ensure equitable access to water and sanitation for all citizens, irrespective of the framework of privatisation or financial cost recovery. With resolution, the responsibility to provide safe water services shifted decisively onto public authorities, challenging them to prioritise human needs over commercial interests (Laituri & Sternlieb, 2012). The resolution emphasised that without access to water, individuals cannot fully exercise other rights, including those related to health, education, and livelihoods (Oliveira, 2017). Recognition effectively redefined the narrative surrounding water governance, linking it firmly to issues of human dignity and social justice.

Furthermore, the UN's declaration lent legitimacy to rights-based approaches to water governance at both national and international levels. Activists, policymakers, and communities now had a powerful tool to advocate for reforms that resist privatisation and promote equitable access (Stevenson et al., 2012). The global discourse on water access began to prioritise justice, equity, and public welfare, moving away from frameworks solely focused on cost recovery. By adopting the resolution, states are now subject to both moral and legal pressures to create governance frameworks that recognise water as a social good rather than a commodified service (Ahsan et al., 2023).

As a result of the UN's recognition of water as a human right, the conversation around water governance has shifted significantly. It has fostered an environment where accountability and the principles of social equity are demanded from governments. For many activists and organisations championing water rights, the shift provides a robust foundation from which to argue against privatisation and to advocate for systems that ensure safe, affordable, and equitable access to water for all. The importance of resolution cannot be overstated, as it represents a critical turning point leading to enhanced legal frameworks that prioritise human rights objectives in water governance (Wyrwoll et al., 2022).

In practice, the mandates arising from Resolution 64/292 imply that states must adopt measures to guarantee the availability of water that is safe for drinking and sanitation on a continuous basis. Includes investing in infrastructure, monitoring water quality, and ensuring that marginalised communities have equitable access to these essential services (Oliveira, 2017). As countries recognise their obligations under the framework, there is an increasing trend towards enshrining water rights in national laws and constitutions, further solidifying the status of water as a human right (Sorenson et al., 2011).

The resolution also invites the exploration of innovative governance models that prioritise public service delivery over profit. For many countries, adhering to the standards set forth by UN resolution requires a complete overhaul of existing water management frameworks, predominantly focused on privatisation. Activist networks and advocacy groups have mobilised around legal acknowledgement, emphasising the need for governments to take proactive steps to guarantee that all citizens enjoy their universally recognised water rights (Kanyangarara et al., 2021).

Additionally, the United Nations' resolution serves as an essential reference point in international discussions surrounding water in the context of climate change, urbanisation, and globalisation. As water scarcity and quality issues become more pronounced due to environmental shifts, invoking the right to water helps frame these challenges within a human rights context, advocating for state accountability to manage and protect vital resources effectively (Laituri & Sternlieb, 2012). The intersection between water rights and climate change highlights an urgent need for integrated policies that consider environmental sustainability alongside human rights obligations.

Push for rights-based water governance exemplifies how recognition of the right to water can galvanise grassroots movements and influence policymaking at various levels. As a catalysed force within civil society, the principles derived from the UN resolution have reinvigorated efforts to ensure that water governance frameworks reflect values of justice, equity, and sustainability (Oliveira, 2017). Ultimately, the adoption of Resolution 64/292 signifies a paradigm shift toward viewing water as a fundamental human right, reshaping the global water governance landscape and leading to a more just and equitable distribution of an essential resource (Lau, 2023).

In summary, the recognition of water as a human right by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 64/292 has transformed global discourse on water governance. By establishing ethical and legal commitments for states to ensure equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation, the resolution provides a compelling basis for advancing social justice and accountability in water management. The shift from viewing water in purely market-driven terms to recognising it as a fundamental human right reaffirms the essential role of clean water in the realisation of other human rights, setting a crucial precedent for future governance practices (Stevenson et al., 2012; Ahsan et al., 2023).

5 Niger – A Sovereign Move Against Corporate Control (2024)

In 2024, Niger's government made the significant decision to terminate its management contract with Veolia, a multinational water corporation, marking a turning point in the nation's approach to water governance. move to reclaim control from a private operator reflected a strong commitment to public ownership and accountability amid growing dissatisfaction with corporate governance over essential services. The decision was grounded in a belief that water must be treated as a public necessity rather than a commodity, reflecting frustrations of citizens who felt burdened by the rising costs of water.

Niger's leadership articulated several justifications for decision, emphasising national sovereignty, affordability, and accountability in managing water resources. By framing water as a service essential for public welfare, the government underscored its intent to prioritise its citizens' interests over foreign corporate profit motives. approach resonated with many Nigeriens who had experienced the adverse effects of privatisation, including escalating prices and reduced service quality. The cancellation of the management contract symbolised a rejection of corporate governance and a reaffirmation of the state's role in safeguarding the rights and interests of its citizens regarding access to vital resources.

Niger's decision aligns with a broader narrative across the Global South, where countries are increasingly reclaiming essential services from corporate frameworks. movement reflects a commitment to managing resources in the public interest, asserting that water provision ought to prioritise human rights rather than the profit-driven motives of multinational corporations. As nations throughout the Global South assert their sovereignty and right to public governance, Niger's action contributes to a growing momentum advocating for people-centered water governance that challenges the status quo.

The decision to end the contract with Veolia has profound regional and global implications. It signifies a rejection of neoliberal water governance models that have proliferated across much of Africa and the world. By championing a renewed commitment to public ownership, Niger joins a cadre of nations advocating for transparency, accountability, and equitable access to resources, thereby contributing to the global discourse on water rights and governance. trend reflects an increasing recognition that essential services should align with national interests, challenging the dominance of corporations in managing public goods.

Niger's stance resonates strongly with ongoing movements in the Global South that focus on recovering public services from corporate control. Citizens' efforts in various countries echo Niger's commitment, reflecting a collective desire for genuine public engagement in decision-making processes regarding water management. Such movements foster local empowerment and advocate for an inclusive approach where marginalised communities' voices are heard and valued.

Moreover, Niger's action reinforces the notion that water is a fundamental human right rather than merely a commodity for corporate markets. perspective aligns with international human rights frameworks that underscore the necessity of secure and affordable access to water as essential for human dignity and survival. By affirming principle through legislative and administrative practices, Niger positions itself as a significant player among nations committed to decolonising governance around essential resources.

In conclusion, Niger's decision to terminate Veolia's contract exemplifies a shift in public policy concerning water governance. By reclaiming control over essential service, the Nigerien government signals its intent to prioritise the needs and rights of its citizens and challenges the privatisation narrative that has dominated water management in the region. move resonates with ongoing struggles for sovereignty across the Global South and adds momentum to the evolving dialogue surrounding water rights as a matter of social justice and accountability. As countries continue to grapple with the complexities of water governance against increasing privatisation, Niger's example serves as a testament to the enduring power of public ownership and democratic action in pursuing equitable access to vital resources.

6 Beyond Law – The Ethics of Access

Addressing the ethical dimensions of access to water transcends mere legal recognition of rights; it requires the implementation of thoughtful, equitable policies that ensure all community members can afford and access the essential resource. Ethical pursuit includes the establishment of progressive tariff structures, enhancing public participation in water governance, and safeguarding against discrimination for marginalised communities. Effective water governance, tethered to ethical principles, can transform legal rhetoric into tangible benefits for all.

6.1 Progressive Tariffs and Protecting the Poor: Tariff Structures That Reflect Equity

One of the most effective policy tools in ensuring equitable access to water is the implementation of progressive tariffs, which charge wealthier users more while protecting those with lower incomes (Araral & Yu, 2013). Progressive tariff systems align with social equity principles by ensuring that basic water needs can be met affordably for all households. Such structures are designed to subsidise basic water requirements while imposing higher rates for excessive consumption. The model not only addresses affordability for lower-income households but also encourages responsible water usage among wealthier consumers (Felgendreher & Lehmann, 2015).

The adoption of progressive tariffs requires a nuanced understanding of local socio-economic conditions and water resource availability. Countries like Peru illustrate that well-designed tariff structures can help address affordability issues in water access (Felgendreher & Lehmann, 2015). By balancing the need for revenue generation with social equity, progressive tariffs can prevent exclusionary practices often associated with flat-rate systems, where low-income users disproportionately bear the burden of increased costs without significant income adjustments.

Moreover, employing progressive tariffs is supported by literature that emphasises the importance of treating water as a public good rather than a mere commodity. By structuring tariffs that reflect users' ability to pay, governments affirm their commitment to human rights and ethical resource management. When effectively implemented, progressive tariffs can be instrumental in bridging disparities in access to water, promoting overall equity (Wardiha, 2021).

6.2 Public Participation in Governance

Ensuring access to water fundamentally relies on meaningful public participation in utility governance (ElDidi & Corbera, 2017). When communities are empowered to engage in decision-making processes, the resulting policies are more likely to resonate with diverse needs, priorities, and cultural contexts. A participatory approach builds trust and accountability between service providers and consumers, enhancing the overall resilience of water systems (Palivos & Tsakiris, 2011).

Furthermore, public participation fosters a sense of ownership within communities, giving residents a stake in the management of their water resources (Carr et al., 2015). Empowerment can lead to more innovative and inclusive water management strategies, ensuring that the perspectives of vulnerable groups, including rural and Indigenous populations, are adequately represented. The incorporation of local knowledge is critical to realising the ethical imperative of universal water access, recognising that inclusive governance strengthens the social fabric and enhances the legitimacy of service provision (Laborde et al., 2010).

Inclusive decision-making processes can significantly mitigate the feeling of disenfranchisement often experienced by underserved communities. These processes are essential for developing trust in public institutions, enabling a collaborative environment that prioritises the health and well-being of all community members, rather than yielding to the interests of private actors (Fielmua & Dongzagla, 2020).

6.3 Anti-Discrimination and Monitoring Mechanisms

Proactive anti-discrimination measures are crucial to the equitable distribution of water services, especially for rural, Indigenous, and marginalised communities who frequently face barriers to access (Damkjaer, 2020). Legal frameworks that protect against discrimination are essential; however, they must be complemented by robust monitoring mechanisms that verify service quality and compliance with equity objectives. Independent oversight bodies can play a pivotal role in regard, ensuring that promises made in legislation translate into substantial access (Suratin et al., 2019).

Monitoring mechanisms should be designed to facilitate transparency and accountability, making it evident when service providers fail to meet standards or exclude particular groups from their resources. By employing tools such as transparent reporting and community feedback loops, stakeholder engagement can be strengthened, leading to improvements in service provision that align with ethical standards of equity (Klassert et al., 2018).

Moreover, monitoring efforts must aim to create data-driven insights into access patterns and service quality, dissecting the systemic inequities that exist in water governance. Through vigilant monitoring, rights can transition from mere legal provisions to lived realities for historically marginalised communities (Suwal et al., 2019).

6.4 Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms

The enforcement of water rights necessitates the establishment of independent monitoring bodies capable of validating that services adhere to equity and quality standards. Legal rights that lack mechanisms for enforcement risk becoming purely symbolic, diluting their impact on actual service provision (Lopez‐Nicolas et al., 2018).

Independent bodies can provide the necessary checks and balances, assessing compliance with established rights-based frameworks and monitoring the socio-economic impacts of water policies. These mechanisms can identify systemic issues and facilitate the implementation of corrective actions where necessary. For example, if service quality is uneven or discriminatory, independent assessments can galvanise reforms to protect the rights of marginalised groups and promote equitable water access (Cardoso et al., 2023).

Additionally, effective monitoring and enforcement must incorporate community involvement, allowing residents to report violations and partake in resource management discussions. collaborative approach not only enriches oversight efforts but also reinforces the connection between legal commitments and ethical obligations (Pihljak et al., 2019).

Ultimately, the interplay between legal recognition of water as a human right and the establishment of ethical frameworks through progressive tariffs, public participation, and monitoring mechanisms elucidates the comprehensive approach required for equitable water governance. Supporting these efforts ensures that all individuals can enjoy their right to water, turning rights on paper into lived realities that uphold the values of justice, social equity, and human dignity.

7 Challenges in Enforcing the Right to Water

Enforcing the right to water presents various challenges that span legal, institutional, and ethical dimensions. The complexity of navigating these challenges requires comprehensive analyses to ensure that the right to water translates from legal recognition into practical, equitable access for all. Below, I outline the primary obstacles, supported by relevant references to deepen the understanding of the context and implications surrounding the vital issue.

7.1 Legal Ambiguity

One of the foremost challenges in enforcing the right to water lies in the ambiguity present in legal frameworks. In many jurisdictions, the right to water is acknowledged indirectly or articulated in vague terms within constitutions and legislation, thus complicating enforcement efforts (Grafton & Williams, 2019). Legal ambiguity allows for varying interpretations and can significantly undermine attempts to hold governments accountable to their obligations. The lack of explicit definitions regarding the right to water complicates litigation, as judicial bodies may struggle to enforce what lacks clarity in legal formulation.

To effectively translate the right to water into actionable policies, it is crucial to pursue clearer, more explicit legal protections that leave minimal room for varied interpretation. In jurisdictions where the language of rights is closely defined, enforcement mechanisms tend to be more robust, fostering accountability and reducing the potential for backtracking or historical oversights in water governance. Clear language also aids in mobilising public support and advocacy efforts, reinforcing the idea that accessing safe water is a fundamental human necessity (Madeira, 2016).

7.2 Enforcement Gaps and Institutional Weakness

Even within legal frameworks where the right to water is well-defined, significant enforcement gaps remain, primarily due to institutional weaknesses. A common issue is the lack of resources, infrastructure, or political will necessary to implement judicial decisions and enforce legal protections effectively (Esteban et al., 2019). Courts may render progressive rulings in favour of water rights, yet without efficient agencies capable of fulfilling these mandates, such rights remain largely theoretical.

Building robust institutions that are well-funded and equipped to monitor and enforce water rights is critical for translating legal victories into practical improvements. Effective governance in the water sector often requires interdisciplinary approaches to ensure that legal frameworks are complemented by adequate resource allocation and capable human capital. Additionally, enhancing collaboration between government bodies and civil society can bolster institutional capacity and accountability in enforcing water rights (Yuan, 2021). When adequately resourced, institutions have the potential to operationalise legal rights through community-engaged initiatives, ensuring that every individual has access to their rightful entitlements.

7.3 Commercial Treaties and Regulatory Capture

The intersection of international commercial treaties with local water governance further complicates the enforcement of water rights. Specific treaties often include investor-state dispute mechanisms, which empower corporations to challenge governmental actions that may affect their investments within the water sector. These provisions can significantly undermine national sovereignty and may prioritise corporate compensation over public welfare considerations (Voß & Schopf, 2017). Such scenarios not only challenge domestic water governance structures but can also instigate policy dilemmas whereby public control over essential resources is weakened in favour of protecting corporate interests.

Moreover, regulatory capture represents another layer of challenge, where corporate entities exert undue influence over policy and regulatory frameworks (Sabo & Andersson-Skog, 2017). When corporations successfully lobby for favourable regulatory conditions, they can hinder the implementation of water rights and legal protections, abdicating accountability in favour of profit motives. As evidenced in various countries navigating water governance, a comprehensive legal framework coupled with vigilant oversight mechanisms is essential to safeguard against these risks (Yuan, 2021). Such vigilance requires not only strong legal statutes but also active civil engagement to monitor compliance and advocate for transparency, ensuring that the evolution of water rights does not compromise essential public interests.

7.4 Regulatory Capture and Policy Corruption

Regulatory bodies tasked with overseeing water management must operate free from corporate influence to maintain the integrity of public services (Esteban et al., 2019). However, corporate lobbying and political interference often undermine these agencies, impeding their ability to enforce water policies effectively. The erosion of regulatory independence can lead to policy corruption, resulting in weakened legal frameworks for protecting public access to water.

Transparency laws and independent watchdog organisations can play a critical role in resisting such influences, providing mechanisms to ensure that public interests remain paramount in water governance (Campos & Giovannoni, 2017). By fostering an environment of accountability, the potential for regulatory drift and the subversion of public protections can be mitigated. Vigilant public engagement, coupled with effective policy frameworks, is crucial to safeguarding the right to water from the threats posed by corporate lobbying and regulatory capture.

8 Conclusion

In summary, while the legal recognition of the right to water represents a substantial first step, the full realisation of the right is contingent upon overcoming various challenges related to legal ambiguities, enforcement gaps, corporate influence, and regulatory capture. Addressing these challenges through clear legal definitions, robust institutional frameworks, anti-corruption measures, and public engagement can facilitate more equitable and just access to water for all. The complexity of the issue necessitates an interdisciplinary approach that amalgamates law, policy, ethics, and community advocacy, ensuring that the essential right to water is upheld as a pillar of social justice and human dignity.

The quest for water justice extends beyond the mere declaration of water as a human right; it necessitates that every individual has reliable access to clean water at their tap. Notion emphasises that justice in water governance can only materialise when effective systems are constructed around transparency, equity, and sustainability. As we explore in discourse, reclaiming control over water resources is just one facet of a more comprehensive strategy—an active commitment to enhance community engagement is essential for a post-privatisation future where water justice is realised.

8.1 The Ethical Foundation of Water Access

Legal recognition of the right to water serves as an important foundation for action, but it is not a panacea. To effectively realise rights, comprehensive policies are needed, including progressive tariff systems that ensure low-income communities are protected from disproportionate costs. Such tariff structures should allow wealthier users to contribute more while subsidising basic needs for the economically disadvantaged (Bertazzo, 2016). Concept aligns with the ethical understanding that access to water for agricultural and domestic purposes must be recognised as a fundamental human right, rooted in international human rights instruments (Baer, 2022).

8.2 Inclusive Governance and Community Participation

To achieve a sustainable water justice framework, the involvement of local communities in governance processes is vital. Inclusive decision-making processes ensure that all voices, especially those of vulnerable populations, are heard and considered (Nigam, 2014). When community members participate actively, water policies are more likely to reflect local needs and circumstances, enhancing their effectiveness and accountability. kind of engagement fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility among community members, thus building resilient and responsive water systems.

8.3 Combating Inequities through Monitoring and Accountability

Equity in access to water hinges also on establishing effective monitoring mechanisms. Transparent oversight frameworks can empower local populations to hold their governments accountable for service delivery and provide critical data to reveal systemic inequities (Singh et al., 2011). It is particularly important in contexts where marginal communities, including rural and Indigenous populations, may face additional barriers to accessing their rights.

Moreover, anti-discrimination measures must be embedded within monitoring frameworks to ensure they effectively safeguard marginalised groups' access to water (Choma & Ramphabana, 2015). Without these safeguards in place, rights can easily become abstract legal concepts rather than practical guarantees of access.

8.4 Legal Ambiguity: A Barrier to Action

One of the critical challenges in enforcing the right to water is legal ambiguity. Many legal frameworks recognise water rights indirectly or vaguely, leaving significant room for interpretation (Krakow, 2020). lack of clarity can hinder accountability and enforcement, making it essential to establish clear and explicit legal definitions that transform these rights into actionable frameworks. A precise articulation of the right to water enhances its enforceability, creating a stronger mechanism for accountability and ensuring that public authorities remain answerable to the population (Obani & Gupta, 2014).

8.5 Addressing Enforcement Gaps

Even where robust legal frameworks exist, enforcement gaps are prevalent due to institutional weaknesses or lack of resources (Gafurova et al., 2023). Legal victories in courts need strong institutional support to translate into real improvements in service delivery. Adequate funding and trained personnel are critical components in closing these gaps; without them, legal rights risk being rendered symbolic. Institutional strengthening is therefore vital for actualising the promise of legal frameworks surrounding the right to water (Komarudin & Yudo, 2018).

8.6 Global Context: Influences Beyond Local Jurisdictions

The global dimensions of water governance introduce further challenges, particularly through international commercial treaties that may include provisions contrary to public interest. Investor-state dispute mechanisms can lead to conflicts between corporate interests and public necessities, often prioritising the former at the expense of community welfare (Jakab & Mélypataki, 2019). As such, stakeholders must remain vigilant in upholding water rights amidst these international agreements, highlighting the importance of legal frameworks that safeguard against the encroachment of corporate interests (Fransiska, 2022).

8.7 Fostering a Rights-Based Approach

Adopting a rights-based approach fundamentally shifts the perception of water from a commodity to a public good. transition is critical for recognising that water access should prioritise the needs of those without reliable access. Nations need to adopt frameworks that enforce the right to information, justice, and participation for all community members in decisions concerning water management (Baer, 2022).

8.8 Building a Post-Privatisation Future

Looking forward, the vision of a post-privatisation future must centre not only on reclaiming control over water resources but also on redefining how these resources are managed and governed. Includes ensuring that governance structures are accountable, transparent, and inclusive. By design, the governance models should support the integration of equity considerations into water management, thereby championing the right to water for every individual.

8.9 Conclusion: Collective Agency in Water Justice

The realisation of water justice ultimately depends on the collective agency of communities, policymakers, and activists alike. It is a collaborative journey requiring persistent engagement and advocacy to ensure that the legal acknowledgement of water rights translates into real-time access for all. As we contemplate the shifting narrative around water governance, it is clear that the future of water justice lies firmly in our hands, necessitating both action and accountability to build sustainable, equitable systems that uphold the rights of every individual.

References:

Ahmad, N., Lilienthal, G. (2021). Right to Water as a Human Right: A Critical Overview of International Instruments. Environmental Policy and Law, 50(2025-05-04 00:00:00), 299-308. https://doi.org/10.3233/epl-200232

Ahsan, A., Ahmed, T., Uddin, M.A., Al-Sulttani, A.O., Shafiquzzaman, M., Islam, M.R., Ahmed, M.S., Alamin, A., Mohadesh, M., Haque, M.N., Al-Mutiry, M., Masria, A. (2023). Evaluation of Water Quality Index (WQI) in and around Dhaka City Using Groundwater Quality Parameters. Water, 15(14), 2666. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15142666

Araral, E., Yu, D.J. (2013). Comparative water law, policies, and administration in Asia: Evidence from 17 countries. Water Resources Research, 49(9), 5307-5316. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20414

Baer, M. (2022). 20. The Human Right to Water. Nan, 423-436. https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780190085469.003.0023

Bain, R., Cronk, R., Hossain, R., Bonjour, S., Onda, K., Wright, J.A., Yang, H., Slaymaker, T., Hunter, P.R., PrÃ¼ssâ€ÃœstÃ¼n, A., Bartram, J. (2014). Global assessment of exposure to faecal contamination through drinking water based on a systematic review. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 19(8), 917-927. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12334

Bakker, K. (2007). The â€œCommonsâ€ Versus the â€œCommodityâ€: Alterâ€globalisation, Antiâ€Anti-privatisation and the Human Right to Water in the Global South. Antipode, 39(3), 430-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2007.00534.x

Bertazzo, S. (2016). La tutela del acceso al agua potable en el Derecho Internacional. Revista De Derecho (Coquimbo), 22(2), 55-92. https://doi.org/10.22199/issn.0718-9753-1809

BidegaÃn, G. (2024). Anti-corruption and transparency in civil society organisations in Uruguay: The challenges of fostering an agenda when the attention is elsewhere. Nan, 52-74. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802202106.00010

Budds, J., Linton, J., McDonnell, R. (2014). The hydrosocial cycle. Geoforum, 57, 167-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.08.003

Campos, N.F., Giovannoni, F. (2017). Political institutions, lobbying and corruption. Journal of Institutional Economics, 13(4), 917-939. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137417000108

Cardoso, M.A., Brito, R.S., Silva, C., Rodrigues, S., Rodrigues, R.I., Costa, A., Cardoso, J.F., Jorge, C., Alegre, H., Rosa, M.J. (2023). Quality of Urban Water Services Provided to Users: Assessment System and the Portuguese Path through Four Generations, Lessons Learned and New Challenges. Sustainability, 15(21), 15273. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115273

Carr, J.A., Seekell, D.A., Dâ€™Odorico, P. (2015). Inequality or injustice in water use for food?. Environmental Research Letters, 10(2), 24013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/024013

Chng, N.R. (2008). Privatisation and Citizenship: Local politics of water in the Philippines. Development, 51(1), 42-48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100444

Choma, H., Ramphabana, P. (2015). Legislative and policy frameworks for basic services: A South African comparative study. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 4(4), 735-739. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgr_v4_i4_c6_p9

Colven, E. (2022). A political ecology of speculative urbanism: The role of financial and environmental speculation in Jakartaâ€™s water crisis. Environment and Planning a Economy and Space, 55(2), 490-510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x221110883

CÃ´rtes, L., CÃ´rtes, A.d.M. (2021). Right to Water and Courts in Brazil: How Do Brazilian Courts Rule When They Frame Water as a Right?. Water, 13(23), 3362. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13233362

Damkjaer, S. (2020). Drivers of change in urban water and wastewater tariffs. H2open Journal, 3(1), 355-372. https://doi.org/10.2166/h2oj.2020.031

Danso, S., Asmorowati, S. (2020). The shift towards democratic governance: System change versus regime change analysis in The Gambia 2017-2019. Masyarakat Kebudayaan Dan Politik, 33(4), 339. https://doi.org/10.20473/mkp.v33i42020.339-351

ElDidi, H., Corbera, E. (2017). A Moral Economy of Water: Charity Wells in Egypt's Nile Delta. Development and Change, 48(1), 121-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12286

Esteban, E., Dinar, A., Albiac, J. (2019). Determinants of water lobbying: irrigators' behaviour in a water-stressed basin. Water Policy, 21(5), 1107-1122. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2019.148

Fantini, E. (2019). An introduction to the human right to water: Law, politics, and beyond. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1405

Felgendreher, S., Lehmann, P. (2015). Public Choice and Urban Water Tariffsâ€: Analytical Framework and Evidence From Peru. The Journal of Environment & Development, 25(1), 73-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496515619651

Fielmua, N., Dongzagla, A. (2020). Independent water pricing of small town water systems in Ghana. Heliyon, 6(6), e04299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04299

Fransiska, A. (2022). Right to health on access to clean water in Indonesia. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 11(6), 519-527. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i6.1973

Fuest, V., Haffner, S.A. (2007). PPP â€ "policies, practices and problems in Ghana's urban water supply. Water Policy, 9(2), 169-192. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2007.060

Gafurova, O., Novak, T., Holub, S. (2023). Problems of ensuring the publicâ€™s right of access to information on the quality of drinking water. Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law, 1(79), 356-361. https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2023.79.1.59

Gearey, M., Church, A., Ravenscroft, N. (2019). From the hydrosocial to the hydrocitizen: Water, place and subjectivity within emergent urban wetlands. Environment and Planning E Nature and Space, 2(2), 409-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619834849

Gerlak, A.K. (2011). Human Rights and Privatisation of Water in the European Union and Beyond. International Studies Review, 13(3), 529-531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01056.x

Grafton, R.Q., Williams, J. (2019). Rent-seeking behaviour and regulatory capture in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 36(2025-03-02 00:00:00), 484-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2019.1674132

HAN, F., DEMÄ°RBÄ°LEK, N. (2022). Ãœniversite Ã–ÄŸrencilerinin Sosyal Adalet KavramÄ±na Ä°liÅŸkin AlgÄ±larÄ±: Bir Metafor Ã‡alÄ±ÅŸmasÄ±. E-International Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1074484

Hirvi, M. (2012). Water Privatisation and Social Citizenship: The Case of Urban Water Sector in Ghana. Journal of Civil Society, 8(4), 351-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2012.744231

Hiskes, R.P. (2010). Missing the Green: Golf Course Ecology, Environmental Justice, and Local "Fulfilment" of the Human Right to Water. Human Rights Quarterly, 32(2), 326-341. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.0.0148

Iristian, Y. (2023). Pursuit of Fairness: Human Rights and Social Justice in Indonesia's Legal Landscape. Journal of Progressive Law and Legal Studies, 2(1), 34-48. https://doi.org/10.59653/jplls.v2i01.530

Jakab, N., MÃ©lypataki, G. (2019). The right to water is a social fundamental right. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Law = AgrÃ¡r- Ã‰s KÃ¶rnyezetjog, (26), 1963-07-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.21029/jael.2019.26.7

Kanyangarara, M., Allen, S., Jiwani, S.S., Fuente, D. (2021). Access to water, sanitation and hygiene services in health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa 2013â€- 2018: Results of health facility surveys and implications for COVID-19 transmission. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06515-z

Khadka, A.K. (2010). The Emergence of Water as a â€˜Human Rightâ€™ on the World Stage: Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 26(1), 37-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620903391838

Klassert, C., Sigel, K., Klauer, B., Gawel, E. (2018). Increasing Block Tariffs in an Arid Developing Country: A Discrete/Continuous Choice Model of Residential Water Demand in Jordan. Water, 10(3), 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030248

Komarudin, K., Yudo, S. (2018). TRANSPARANSI DAN AKUNTABILITAS PELAYANAN PUBLIK KASUS TEKNOLOGI PENGELOLAAN AIR BERSIH DAN AIR LIMBAH DOMESTIK. Jurnal Air Indonesia, 5(1), . https://doi.org/10.29122/jai.v5i1.2436

Krakow, C.A. (2020). The International Law and Politics of Water Access: Experiences of Displacement, Statelessness, and Armed Conflict. Water, 12(2), 340. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020340

Laborde, D., Jean, S., MartÃn, W. (2010). Formulas And Flexibility In Trade Negotiations: Sensitive Agricultural Products In The WTO's Doha Agenda. Nan. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5200

Laituri, M., Sternlieb, F. (2012). Mapping institutional landscapes: global efforts to improve access to water. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 7(3), 273-287. https://doi.org/10.2495/sdp-v7-n3-273-287

Lau, R.K. (2023). Operationalising Human Security: What Role for the Responsibility to Protect?. International Studies, 60(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208817231154054

Leb, C. (2012). The right to water in a transboundary context: emergence of seminal trends. Water International, 37(6), 640-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2012.710950

Leong, C. (2015). Persistently Biased: The Devil Shift in Water Privatisation in Jakarta. Review of Policy Research, 32(5), 600-621. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12138

Lopezâ€Nicolas, A., Pulido-VelÃ¡zquez, M., RougÃ©, C., Harou, J., Escrivaâ€Bou, A. (2018). Design and assessment of an efficient and equitable dynamic urban water tariff. Application to the city of Valencia, Spain. Environmental Modelling & Software, 101, 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.12.018

Madeira, M.A. (2016). New trade, new politics: intra-industry trade and domestic political coalitions. Review of International Political Economy, 23(4), 677-711. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2016.1218354

Mazzoni, D., Zomeren, M.v., Cicognani, E. (2013). The Motivating Role of Perceived Right Violation and Efficacy Beliefs in Identification with the Italian Water Movement. Political Psychology, 36(3), 315-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12101

Meier, B.M., Kayser, G., Amjad, U., Bartram, J. (2012). Implementing an evolving human right through water and sanitation policy. Water Policy, 15(1), 116-133. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2012.198

Muehlebach, A. (2023). A Vital Frontier. Nan. https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478024408

Nigam, A.K. (2014). Right to Water in International and National Perspective. Iosr Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), 2014-10-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-19471014

Obani, P. (2015). The human rights to water and sanitation in courts worldwide: a selection of national, regional, and international case law, WaterLex, 2014, ISBN: 978-2-940526-00-0. International Environmental Agreements Politics Law and Economics, 15(2), 237-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9284-7

Obani, P., Gupta, J. (2014). The Evolution of the Right to Water and Sanitation: Differentiating the Implications. Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24(1), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12095

Oliveira, C.M.d. (2017). Sustainable access to safe drinking water: a fundamental human right in the international and national scene. Ambiente E Agua - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Science, 12(6), 985. https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.2037

Palivos, T., Tsakiris, N. (2011). Trade and Tax Reforms in a Cashâ€inâ€Advance Economy. Southern Economic Journal, 77(4), 1014-1032. https://doi.org/10.4284/0038-4038-77.4.1014

Palmer, R.C., Short, D., Auch, W. (2018). The Human Right to Water and Unconventional Energy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 1858. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091858

Pihljak, L.H., Rusca, M., Aldaâ€Vidal, C., Schwartz, K. (2019). Everyday practices in the production of uneven water pricing regimes in Lilongwe, Malawi. Environment and Planning C Politics and Space, 39(2), 300-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654419856021

Sabo, J., Andersson-Skog, L. (2017). Dynamite Regulations. The Explosives Industry, Regulatory Capture and the Swedish Government 1858-1948. International Advances in Economic Research, 23(2), 191-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-017-9637-9

Sande, M.v.d. (2020). They do not represent us? Synecdochal representation and the politics of Occupy movements. Constellations, 27(3), 397-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12462

Singh, N., Wickenberg, P., Ã…strÃ¶m, K., HydÃ©n, H. (2011). Accessing water through a rights-based approach: problems and prospects regarding children. Water Policy, 14(2), 298-318. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2011.141

Sorenson, S.B., Morssink, C.B., Campos, P.A. (2011). Safe access to safe water in low-income countries: Water fetching in current times. Social Science & Medicine, 72(9), 1522-1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.010

Starzyk, K.B., Neufeld, K.H.S., Gaucher, D., Vorauer, J.D., Fontaine, A.S.M., Quesnel, M., Yakubovich, A.R. (2021). "Is Water a Human Right?"Priming Water as a Human Right Increases Support for Government Action. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2021.12.3.9342

Stevenson, E.G., Greene, L.E., Maes, K., Ambelu, A., Tesfaye, Y., Rheingans, R., Hadley, C. (2012). Water insecurity in 3 dimensions: An anthropological perspective on water and women's psychosocial distress in Ethiopia. Social Science & Medicine, 75(2), 392-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.022

Suratin, A., Triakuntini, E., Herdiansyah, H. (2019). Effects of the implementation of a progressive tariffs policy on water management in DKI Jakarta, Indonesia. Environmental & Socio-Economic Studies, 7(4), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2019-0022

Suwal, B.R., Zhao, J., Raina, A., Wu, X., Chindarkar, N., Kumar, K.C.B., Whittington, D. (2019). Households' preferences for water tariff structures in Kathmandu, Nepal. Water Policy, 21(S1), 2028-09-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2019.079

Tadeu, N.D., Trimble, M., LÃ¡zaro, M., Venturini, P., Venegas, M. (2023). Divergent perspectives about water security: hydrosocial transformations in the metropolitan region of Montevideo (Uruguay). Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 5, https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2023.1207652

Taks, J. (2008). â€˜El Agua es de Todos/Water for Allâ€™: Water resources and development in Uruguay. Development, 51(1), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100464

Trimble, M., Olivier, T., Anjos, L.A.P., Tadeu, N.D., Giordano, G., Donnell, L.M., Laura, R., Salvadores, F., Santana-Chaves, I.M., Torres, P.H.C., Pascual, M., Jacobi, P.R., Mazzeo, N., Zurbriggen, C., Garrido, L., JobbÃ¡gy, E.G., Pahlâ€Wostl, C. (2022). How do basin committees deal with water crises? Reflections for adaptive water governance from South America. Ecology and Society, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-13356-270242

VoÃŸ, A., Schopf, M. (2017). Special interest politics: Contribution schedules vs. Nash bargaining. Economics and Politics, 30(2), 256-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12107

Wahi, N. (2022). The Evolution of the Right to Water in India. Water, 14(3), 398. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14030398

Wardiha, M.W. (2021). Acceptance Analysis of PDAM Slemanâ€™s Water Tariff Based on Revenue and Willingness to Pay Projection. Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum, 1000(1000). https://doi.org/10.22146/jcef.60536

Warner, M.E. (2008). Reversing privatisation, rebalancing government reform: Markets, deliberation and planning. Policy and Society, 27(2), 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2008.09.001

Wyrwoll, P.R., Manero, A., Taylor, K.S., Rose, E., Grafton, R.Q. (2022). Measuring the gaps in drinking water quality and policy across regional and remote Australia. NPJ Clean Water, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-022-00174-1

Yuan, Q. (2021). How to Restrain Regulatory Capture and Promote Green Innovation in China. An Analysis Based on Evolutionary Game Theory. Sustainability, 13(17), 9752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179752

WATER AND WASTEWATER POINT

Thursday, May 15, 2025

WATER AS A RIGHT – THE LEGAL AND MORAL PUSH AGAINST PRIVATISATION