This video will describe a task that we'd like you to do in the discussion forums for this session. The subject is the UN Decoration on the human right to water and sanitation. When we teach us material in a live classroom and at universities, we typically organized this discussion in a form of a debate with the four side in an against side. In this MOOC, we'd like you to form hold a debate in a discussion forms for these session. Here is the proposition we'd like you to debate. The United Nations Declaration establishing a human right to water and sanitation is a big step forward. And will result in many more poor households receiving improved water and sanitation services in the future. In the discussion forum, you can choose which side of the debate you want to argue, for or against. If you take the for position, you should argue that the United Nations Declaration of the Human Right to Water and Sanitation is a big step forward. And will result in many more poor households receiving improved water and sanitation services in the future then would otherwise have been the case. If you take the against position, you should argue that this is not true. Please be sure to read the 2010 UN Resolution about the human right to water and sanitation, which we have provided to you. There are two interesting papers that can give you some background on some of the different perspectives about the UN Declaration. Both of these were published in the Journal Water Policy. Also if you Google human right to water and Catarina de Albuquerque, you'll find a huge amount of material. Catarina de Albuquerque, was the UN Special Rapporteur into the human right water from 2008 to 2014, where also lots of video materials in this topic on YouTube. As background for your debate, in this video, I'd like to say a few general things about the assignment of rights as one kind of policy intervention. Another way of think about the establishment of a right to water is it gives the claimant, the person who wants the improved water and sanitation services power to make a claim on the duty holder. And the duty holder has assigned a liability, there's a new claim that is being made on his financial resources. For example, the government of the United States has been very careful not to consent to any legal liability as a duty holder. The United States has joined the consensus on a number of United Nation resolutions that recognize the human right to water and sanitation. There's part of achieving an adequate standard of living that's progressively realized. In other words, it has accepted the human right to water as an aspirational goal, but with no legally binding obligations for the United States. More generally, there are three main grounds on which a presumed duty holder can deny a claim that someone has a human right to water and a claim on his resources. First, someone might agree that the claimant has a right, but deny that he is the duty holder. In other words, the liability of the ride falls on others. From my perspective, this is close to the position of the United States on the human right to water. Second, a duty holder might deny the actual existence of the right, questioning for example, the legitimacy. Or standing of the United Nations, or even his national government to create such a new right or entitlement to improve water and sanitation services. Third, a duty holder might acknowledge that a particular kind of right exists, but deny that a specific individual or group can claim it. For example, a particular group of claimants might be judged to be too rich. Or already have sufficient water service to impose a liability on the duty holder to provide better water and sanitation services. This raises another interesting issue that you may choose to discuss in your debate. What level of service is sufficient to satisfy the human right to water and sanitization? For example, is a system of public taps sufficient? If the stage is the duty holder can it impose a per bucket price for water from public taps. And still say that it satisfies the human right to water if claimants say, the price is to high. What if the state decides to provide free public taps, but a group of claimants says they do not want public taps? Instead they want piped private connections for the exclusive use or household members. And they say they would not use free public taps and that the vendors they use now are expensive. And they know the waters contaminated, but they are convenient. Should the state be obliged to provide a lower level of service that households do not want in order to satisfy the human right to water? Or is the state obliged to provide subsidized water from private pipe connections? There are also interesting questions about the dynamic obligations of duty holders that you may want to address in the debate. For example, suppose an international organization accepts it. It is a duty holder and provides freely trains to pour rural households in a region were open defecation is coming. For argument sake, let's assume that real households stop open defecations practices and use the donors latrines. But suppose that after the latrines are filled up, households do not have the money to have them emptied or simply choose not to do so, and return to open defecation. Is the duty holder's obligation fulfilled, or is the donor obliged to arrange for the latrines to be emptied? In other words, does the obligation exist into perpetuity or is it time limited? Another question you may choose to discuss in the debate is the legal enforceability of the human right to water. Some have argued that poor households without sufficient water and sanitation services can sue their national governments for the enforcement of their rights. This could be either in the national courts or at the International Court of Justice, at the Hague. Would you support such legal action? Do you think the courts have an important role to play in deciding on the scale and type of investments needed to improve water and sanitation services? Another area for your discussion forums, might be the distinction between negative rights and positive rights. The United States Bill of Rights provides examples of negative rights, things a state should not do. Because the right holder has the liberty or freedom to undertake these actions. For example, in the United States a bill of rights protects citizens form intrusion by the state on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Similarly citizens in the United States have a right not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure, double jeopardy in a court of law, and self-incrimination. On the other hand, the human right to water and sanitation is best characterized as a positive right. The state or duty holder has to take a positive action to do something, in this case, to build and maintain water and sanitation services. In the case of the human right to water, the duty holder has to spend funds to ensure that the claimant has the benefit stream of water and sanitation services. Of course, the state may also have to spend some funds to ensure negative rights are protected. But certainly not to the same extent as the provision of a daily service to all the individuals in a population. For example, people may never need a jury trial, even though they have a right to one. But people need water and sanitation services every day of their lives. If you're interested in pursuing the implications of this line of inquiry in the discussion forums, you may find it useful to read Isaiah Berlin's seminal essay Two Concepts of Liberty. This essay was first presented as a lecture at Oxford University in 1958 and is widely available. One place you can find it is in Isaiah Berlin's book, Four Essays on Liberty. It is one of the four essays. We hope you have fun debating these issues on the discussion forums. Good luck.
