I hope our brother blog would have some time to indulge us in this never ending debate about the right to water (IUCN paper here):

The term ‘right to water’ does not only refer to the rights of people but also to the needs of the environment with regard to river basins, lakes, etc. Realistically, a right to water cannot be secured without attention to this broader context. A failure to recognise water as an environmental resource may jeopardise the rights-based approach, which views water primarily as a social resource. (Scanlon et al. 2004: 22)

I have no doubt that there is a duty to protect the environment. But arguing that the right to water extends into the environmental right to water is a bit too much, I think – or perhaps not?

I don’t quite understand the logical flow. Is it like this:

• Right to Water –> Secure the trees and lakes, etc –> Water for everyone

If yes. Then how ‘bout this:

• Right to education –> safe the trees –> trees to build schools for everyone

(Which means that everyone on the Easter Island violated the right to education—as well as the right to housing, health and so many other rights). I have no doubt that cutting the trees too much may reduce the long term of availability of water. But cutting trees may also provide immediate housing and livelihood. Sucking out fossil water, the great manmade river project (BBC news story here) for example is definitely not sustainable (and its environmental impacts are not yet known), but they said that it’d be able to quench Libya’s thirst for tens of years.

Qadhafi may actually be providing the short-term needs of the Libyan for water, without any regard to environmental sustainability. Is this not the right to water?

Consider the view of this Equadorian blogger about their water law (H.T. to our neighbor blog). He demands that the law must comprise of 9 points, one of them being the rights of the nature and a deprivatization policy.

From the outset of the right to water debate, we can see a differing view. One perceives it to be ultimately anthropocentric, while the other sees it as inherent with the environment. Integrating the latter’s view into the former might be difficult, as it must pass through some anthropocentrical tests. For example, if you support the latter’s view, you will have to convince Qhadafi that drilling out Libya’s fossil water will jeopardize humanity. If the harm caused by the activity is remote, or ‘insubstantial’ compared to the immediate gains, then you might lose your argument. If the harm is unknown, a defeat is certain.

There are practical implications too. If the right to water is to comprise the latter view, its enforcement may be on the same level with existing environmental principles, which are considered soft laws. However, the point of having it is to provide a powerful advocacy basis for human rights campaigner. Then, there is a fear that interpreting the right of environment to water into the right to water would dilute this power.

Quick blogging. Follow this hashtag #22TwDb

Twitter Debate: Virtual Law Offices -- Game Changer or Business as Usual? (w/Transcript) - News - ABA Journal 

From Ted:

1. You've got to judge law mainly by its effect on the broader society, not individual disputes.

2. For law to be the platform for freedom, people have to trust it.

3. Law sets boundaries, and on one side of those boundaries are all the things you can't do or must do. But those same boundaries are supposed to define and protect a dry ground of freedom.

4.To rebuild the boundaries of freedom, two changes are essential: (i) simplify the law and (ii) restore the authority to judges and officials to interpret and apply the law.

Philip continued:

We have to simplify the law. We have to migrate from all this complexity towards general principles and goals. The constitution is only 16 pages long. Worked pretty well for 200 years. Law has to be simple enough so that people can internalize it in their daily choices. Here is the hardest and biggest change. We have to restore the authority to judges and officials to interpret and apply the law. interpret and apply the law. (Applause) We have to rehumanize the law. To make law simple so that you feel free, the people in charge have to be free to use their judgment to interpret and apply the law in accord with reasonable social norms. As you're going down, and walking down the sidewalk during the day you have to think, that if there is a dispute, there is somebody in society who sees it as their job to affirmatively protect you if you are acting reasonably. That person doesn't exist today.

You know what, I asked futurist David Brin once, and he told me that the law of the future will only have one or two articles.

With a little reflection thanks to Star Trek, I think the law of the future will only have one article.

Separately, Gayus Lumbuun from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) said that the House leaders had to explain what really happened on the documents which should have been completely sent to the KPK.

Deputy House speaker Priyo Budi Santoso from the Golkar Party said he too was surprised by the fact that the KPK had yet to receive all the necessary documents and that the House leaders would investigate into the issue.

Hat Tip to Mulia.

Oxfam/Routledge published a special issue on water in Gender and Development Journal. The articles can be downloaded for free.

Gender and community mobilisation for urban water infrastructure investment in southern Nigeria
Charisma Acey

'Good' water governance and gender equity: a troubled relationship
Frances Cleaver and Kristin Harmada

Sustainable development, water resources management and women's empowerment: the Wanaraniya Water Project in Sri Lanka
Seela Aladuwaka and Janet Momsen

Unequal burden: water privatisation and women's human rights in Tanzania
Rebecca Brown

After the summit: women's access to water and policymaking in Brazil
Marianna Leite

Oxfam experience of providing screened toilet, bathing and menstruation units in its earthquake response in Pakistan
Jamila Nawaz, Shamma Lal, Saira Raza and Sarah House

Menstrual hygiene in South Asia: a neglected issue for WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) programmes
Thérèse Mahon and Maria Fernandes

I cannot drink water on an empty stomach: a gender perspective on living with drought
Frank S. Arku and Cynthia Arku

Video: Kruha

The Jakarta Globe runs a special edition about Jakarta's Water last year and wrap them nicely in a downloadable PDF. I will sum up the statistics quoted by the globe in this Water special edition:


1. 20% of Jakartans have no access to toilet
2. 35 million people expected to be living and using water in Greater Jakarta by 2020
3. 60% less spending on infrastructure as a proportion of GDP than In Suharto's era
4. 140 elephants the weight of raw sewage goes into Jakarta's ground or waterways daily
5. 400,000 liters of waste dumped In the capital's rivers or canals everyday
6. 25cm some parts of Jakarta sink every year
7. $5.8 billion is Indonesia's annual economic and health cost for poor sanitation
8. 40% of homes in Jakarta have no piped water
9. 50% of treated water leaks out before getting to users
10. 20,000 squatters living on the banks of Pluit reservoir
11. 56,000 households flush their sewage straight into the ground
12. $600 low-end cost to connect a home to piped sewage system
13. 20% of the city’s daily waste ends up in local rivers, reducing their flow rate up to 50%
14. 150cm depth the city has sunk in some parts over the last decade

Some of the most prominent figures of the Indonesian legal community is sharing their thoughts in twitter. Sometimes, when they are happy, they provide advices too, with 140 characters, that is.

(Hey, in this world, nothing is free, except for advices. And for lawyers, oftentimes, that is also not free. So, 140 characters is a good thing to start.)

So, who’s on Twitter? Here’s a list of those benevolent lawyers.

1. Taufik Basari often tweets about human rights law.

2. Pramudya tweets about Law and Economics.

3. Ari Juliano, who is the Indonesian Coordinator for the Creative Commons Project, often tweets about IPR

4. Faiz, our future Constitutional Court Chief Justice, tweets about, well, Constitution.

5. Arsil has his own Jurisprudence class in Twitter.

6. Anggara, our savvy Press Lawyer (he did several Judicial Reviews related to press law by the way) tweets here.

7. If you are a law student, keep an eye on Legal101 (from students, for students :)

8. Oh, I tweet too. You can find me here. I tried to organize my useful tweets, with this hashtag #lawtalk . Pram is also joining me in this hashtag. 

These people are quite friendly. So I think they will be happy to answer your twitter queries.