UN vote on the right to water: What is the legal value of the resolution?

(BY HUGO)

From a legal perspective, a question that comes to mind is: what is the legal value of the 28 July 2010 UN General Assembly resolution on the human right to water and sanitation in international law?

Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which is widely recognised as the most authoritative statement as to the sources of international law, provides that international treaties, international custom, general principles of law, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists are considered as international law.

UN General Assembly resolutions are not covered by article 38. This does not mean that yesterday's resolution has no legal value. There is a huge body of doctrine on the legal significance of UN GA resolutions. Malcom Shaw, International Law, 3rd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, at pp. 107-112, provides great insight into the legal context of UN General Assembly resolutions (references are omitted):

«Foremost among the issues that have arisen and one that reflects the growth in the importance of the Third World states and the gradual de-Europeanisation of the world order is the question of the standing of the resolutions and declarations of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Certain resolutions of the Assembly are binding upon the organs and member states of the United Nations [e.g.: article 17 of the UN Charter]. Other resolutions, however, are not legally binding and are merely recommendatory, putting forward opinions on various issues with varying degrees of majority support. This is the classic position and reflects the intention that the Assembly was to be basically a parliamentary advisory body with the binding decisions being taken by the Security Council.

Nowadays, the situation is somewhat more complex. The Assembly has produced a great number of highly important resolutions and declarations and it was inevitable that these should have some impact upon the direction adopted by modern international law. The way states vote in the General Assembly and the explanations given upon such occasions constitute evidence of state practice and state understanding as to the law. Where a particular country has consistently voted in favour of, for example, the abolition of apartheid, it could not afterwards deny the existence of a usage condemning racial discrimination and it may even be that that usage is for that state converted into a binding custom. [...]

Where the vast majority of states consistently vote for resolutions and declarations on a topic, that amounts to a state practice and a binding rule may very well emerge provided that the requisite opinio juris can be proved. [...]

Accordingly, such resolutions are able to speed up the process of the legalisation of a state practice and thus enable a speedier adaptation of customary law to the conditions of modern life. The presence of representatives of virtually all of the states of the world in the General Assembly enormously enhances the value of that organ in general political terms and in terms of the generation of state practice that may or may not lead to binding custom. [...]

Nevertheless, one must be alive to the dangers in ascribing legal value to everything that emanates from the Assembly. Resolutions are often the results of political compromises and arrangements and, comprehended in that sense, never intended to constitute binding norms. Great care must be taken in moving from a plethora of practice to the identification of legal norms.»

Hence, among the most significant issues pertaining to the legal value of yesterday's resolution in international law figures the interrelation between state practice and international custom. In this context, it could be interesting to have a look at which state voted in favour or abstained yesterday, and to put these votes in parallel with the votes cast on the UN General Assembly Resolution on the right to development, 15 February 2000, U.N. Doc. A/RES/54/175, which declares that the rights to food and clean water are fundamental human rights for the right to development (§12 (a)). By the way, it must also be noted that although it is the subject of a GA resolution, the legal status of the right to development in international law remains unclear.

The text of yesterday's resolution and the votes per state can be found here. Canada's official position is as follows:

«The representative of Canada said his delegation had joined the consensus on the resolution that had created the mandate of the independent expert [Catarina de Albuquerque]. The work of that mechanism was expected to further promote study of the issue of access to water and sanitation as a human right and, as such, the text was premature. The non-binding resolution appeared to determine that there was indeed a right without setting out its scope. Since there was no consensus on the matter it was premature to declare such a right in the absence of clear international agreement, he said, adding that he had abstained from the vote.»