User:NjkjtaMjtskevjtch/sandbox

Inter-American Court of Human Rights
The right to water has been considered in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay. The issues involved the states failure to acknowledge indigenous communities property rights over ancestral lands. In 1991, the state removed the indigenous Sawhoyamaxa community from the land resulting in their loss of access to basic essential services like water, food, schooling and health services. This fell within the scope of the American Convention on Human Rights; encroaching the right to life. Water, falls within as part of enjoyment of the land. the courts held the lands be returned, compensation provided and basic goods and services to be implemented while the community was in the process of having the lands returned.

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
The following International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) cases concern the contracts established between governments and corporation for the maintenance of waterways. Although the cases regard questions of an investment nature, commentators have noted that the indirect impact of the right to water upon the verdicts is significant. This is as investors were only entitled to compensation inside parameters set out by courts deemed reasonable in their consideration of the public interest, that would indicate recognition of the right to water. At the time of writing about 10% of the worlds water is privatized, It is important to note that the privatization of water is a controversial and heavily disputed issue.

Azurix Corp v Argentina
The first notable case regarding right to water in the ICSID is that of Azurix Corp v Argentina. The dispute was between the Argentine Republic and Azurix Corporation regarding discrepancies arising from a 30 year contract between the parities to run the water supply of provincial authorities. A consideration in regard to right to water is implicitly made during the arbitration for compensation, where it was held that Azurix was entitled to a fair return of the market value of the investment. This was rather than the requested US$438.6 million, citing that a reasonable business person could not expect such a return given the limits of water price increases and improvements that would be required to ensure a well-functioning and clean water system.

Biwater Gauff Ltd v Tanzania
Secondly, a similar case encountered by the ICSID is that of Biwater Gauff Ltd v Tanzania This was again a case of a private water company (Biwater Gauff) encountering a contractual dispute with a government, this time the United Republic of Tanzania. The disputed contract at hand was for the operation and management of the Dar es Salaam water system. In May of 2005, the Tanzania government ended the contract with Biwater Gauff for its alleged failure to meet performance guarantees. in July 2008 the Tribunal issued its decision on the case ; declaring that the Tanznia government had violated the agreement with Biwater Gauff. It did not however award monetary damages to Biwater; acknowledging that public interest concerns were paramount in the dispute.

Right to water in domestic law
Without the existence of an international body that can enforce; the human right to water relies upon the activity and implementation of national courts. The basis for this has been established through the constitutionalisation of economic, social and cultural Rights (ESCR) through one of two means. The first being as a "directive principle" ; which essentially render the rights as goals and are often non-justiciable. The second being where the ESCR are expressly protected and enforceable through the courts.

South Africa
In South Africa the right to water is enshrined within the constitution and implemented by the work of ordinary statutes. this is evidence of a slight modification of the second technique of constitutionalisation referred to as the "subsidiary legislation model". This means that a large portion of the content and implementation of the right is done an ordinary domestic statue with some constitutional standing.

Residents of Bon Vista Mansions v Southern Metropolitan Local Council
The first notable case in which the courts did so was the Residents of Bon Vista Mansions v Southern Metropolitan Local Council. The case was brought by residents of a block of flats (Bon Vista Mansions), following the disconnection of the water supply by the local Council resulting from the failure to pay water charges. The court held that in adherence to the South African Constitution, that constitutionally all persons ought to have access to water as a right.

Further reasoning for the decision was based on the General Comment 12 on the Right to Food, made by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights imposing upon parties to the agreement the obligation to observe and respect already existing access to adequate food by not implementing any encroaching measures.

The court found that the discontinuation of the existing water source, which had not adhered to the "fair and reasonable" requirements of the South African Water Services Act was illegal. . It is important to note that the decision pre-dates the adoption of the UN General Comment No. 15.

Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg
The issue regarding the quantity of water to be provided was further discussed in Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg. The case revolved around the distribution of water through pipes to Phiri, one of the oldest areas of Soweto. this case concerned two major issues ; the first being whether or not the city's policy regarding the supply of free basic water, 6 kilolitres per month to each account holder in the city was in conflict with Section 27 of the South African Constitution or Section 11 of the Water Services Act. The second issue being whether or not the installation of pre-paid water meters was lawful. It was held in the High Court that the city's by-laws did not provide for the installation of meters and that their installation was unlawful. Further, as the meters halted supply of water to residence once the free basic water supply had ended, this was deemed an unlawful discontinuation of the water supply. The court held the residents of Phiri should be provided with a free basic water supply of 50 litres per person per day.

The respondents took the case to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) which held that the city's water policy had been formulated based upon a material error of law in regards to the city's obligation to provide the minimum set in the South African National Standard, therefore it was set aside. The court also held the quantity for dignified human existence in compliance with section 27 of the constitution was in fact 42 litres per person per day rather than 50 litres per person per day. the SCA declared that the installation of water meters was illegal, but suspended the order for two years to give the city an opportunity to rectify the situation.

The issues went further to the Constitutional Court, which held that the duty created by constitution required that the state take reasonable legislative and other measures progressively to realise the achievement of the right to access of water, within its available resource. the Constitutional Court also held that it is a matter for the legislature and executive institution of government to act within the allowance of their budgets and that the scrutiny of their programs is a matter of democratic accountability. Therefore the minimum content set out by the regulation 3(b) is constitutional, rendering the bodies to deviate upwards and further it is inappropriate for a court to determine the achievement of any social and economic right the government has taken steps to implement. The courts had instead focused their inquiry on whether the steps taken by Government are reasonable, and whether the Government subjects its policies to regular review. The judgment has been criticized for deploying an "unnecessarily limiting concept of judicial deference".

India
the two most prominent cases in India regarding right to water illustrate that although the right to water is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India as constitutionally protected right ; it has been interpreted by the Courts that the right to life includes the right to safe and sufficient water.

Delhi Water Supply v State of Haryana
Here a water usage dispute arose due to the fact that the state of Haryana was using the Jamuna river for irrigation, while the residents of Delhi needed it for the purpose of drinking. It was reasoned that domestic use overrode the commercial use of water, the court ruled that the State of Haryana make available the water for consumption and domestic use in Delhi.

Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar
Also notable is the case Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, where a discharge of sludge from the washeries into the Bokaro river was petitioned against by way of public interest litigation. the courts found that the right to life, as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India included the right to enjoy pollution free water. The case failed upon the facts and it was held that the filing of the petition had been filed not in any public interest but for the petitioners personal interest and therefore a continuation of litigation would amount to an abuse of process.

New Zealand
The status of ESCR in New Zealand at the current time are not explicitly protect by either the Human Rights or Bill of Rights Acts, therefore the right to water is not protected by water. The New Zealand Law Society has recently indicated that New Zealand would give further consideration to the status of economic, social and cultural rights in the laws of New Zealand.