Critically assess the arguments in support of and against the Essay

Critically assess the inclinations in support of and against the acknowledgement of the legally binding nature of the right to wate - Essay ExampleThis right to an adequate type of living is in turn enshrined in a number of international humans rights treaties. The rationale herein is that it would be impossible to uphold these international human rights treaties without making the right to piddle system legally binding. As a mater of fact, water is one of the most basic needs for mankind. Some of these treaties include the get together Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The strength of this argument is well underscored by these treaties organism binding, since they have intercourse near global ratification1. In a closely related wavelength, Nordblom, Reeson and Finlayson2 observe that the rationale behind the argument in favour of the legalisation of the right to water is that this move is a landmark decision that would irrevocably bring ameliorations on the lives of one thousand millions of people who are still unable to access water and proper sanitation, with children and women being at the centre of this rationale. Particularly, it is pointed out that about 1.5 million children under the age of 5 years die of diarrhoea, annually, due to the inability to access clean water. This argument is very valid, given that it acknowledges the fact that this inability to access clean water exacerbates gender disparity. The issue of gender comes into play herein, since lack of access to clean water affects women, girls and children than men. Another rationale behind this move is that it had been ratified by major players in international relations. Particularly, according to Gunduz3, the forgiving Rights Council as the main body of the joined Nations on human rights had furthered this move, as a resolution that had been tabled and supported by Spain, Germany, France, Brit ain and other member states of the UN. This move was pursuant to the July 2010 resolution of the UN General Assembly which had value access to water and proper sanitation as a fundamental human right. This move had to have legally binding obligations, in order for this comment to remain binding. Conversely, such a move in the UN General Assembly of 2010 was propounded by the rationale that despite water being an essential commodity or element in human life, yet a very significant fraction of the worlds fraction could not access it. Particularly, the UN quoted research results obtained by its Independent Experts to divulge that while 1 billion people are not able to access improved or standardised sources of water, 3 billion have no taps in their homes. The import of this is that there are billions of people consuming unsafe water. It is also important to note that the report that was tabled by the Independent Experts also helped reinforce the ideas on the legalisation of the right to water because it also aimed at ensuring quality in accessibility to water and sanitation, and not undecomposed quantity. Other scholars such as Pink4 and Kibassa5 argue that the move to make the right to water legally binding was also imperative if a larger gossip by other stakeholder was to be realised. Particularly, the recognition of water as a human right and a legally binding reality by the Human Rights Council set the standard for all water services providers to follow, whether these providers are in private or public ventures. The import