Article 31: A Well-Spring of Human Rights
Article 31 is a campaign to insert the right to clean water in the UN's declaration of human rights – but what else is missing?
More than 60 years have passed since the general assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Many still view that December day in 1948 as a defining moment in our species' long, often diverted, march towards civilisation. The 30 articles that make up the declaration still sound as relevant today as they did back when humanity was emerging dazed and confused from a global conflict. But might it now be time to consider updating the wording of some of the articles, or even adding new ones, just as the US constitution has slowly evolved since its inception in 1787 with, to date, 27 amendments?
An online campaign called "Article 31" is working to amend a strange anomaly to the original declaration - the omission of the right to clean and accessible water. The right to "food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" exists under Article 25, but inexplicably there's no specific mention of the right to water, as the campaign organisers point out:
Now, 60 years later, recognising that over a billion people across the planet lack access to clean and potable water and that millions die each year as a result, it is imperative to add one more article to this historic declaration, the right to water.With water scarcity and water privatisation becoming ever bigger issues around the world, there seems to be a well-full of logic supporting this particular campaign, and there appears to be no reason why the general assembly shouldn't make this amendment at the earliest opportunity.We, the undersigned, respectfully call upon the United Nations to add a 31st article to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, establishing access to clean and potable water as a fundamental human right.
We believe the world will be a better place when the right to water is acknowledged by all nations as a fundamental human right, and that this addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represents a major step toward the goal of water for all.
But surely there are other strong candidates for inclusion? For example, there is no provision within the declaration for a right to live in a clean environment, either in the local sense or in the broader sense. Shouldn't it be our human right to be able to swim in a sea free of sewage, litter and mercury? Shouldn't it be our human right to breathe in air free of the sort of toxic gases and particulates found in traffic fumes? Shouldn't it be our human right - or, more accurately, the right of future generations - to live in a world whose finite natural resources are not being depleted and exhausted for the financial benefit of a small minority?
How you word such articles is certainly up for debate, but surely it is time to somehow stitch today's multifaceted environmental concerns into the declaration, especially when many people still appear to believe that one of our fundamental human rights is "to do whatever the hell I like regardless of the wider impact".
But beyond environmental considerations, what about the right to freedom of information? Or, now that we live in an age of BlackBerrys and broadband, how about the right to communicate without hindrance or censorship? And what about the human right to protest in a non-violent manner without threat or intimidation?
What would you want Article 31 to be?
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
14 Comments so far
Show AllWell, instead of adding an amendment, we could make the UDHR actually binding.
dont we want to sustain our world i believe "article 31" will be a great asset to moving the world in a better direction Everyone needs water to live just as we need freedom to live
How do you make a "right" to food or water binding? Who is held responsible if someone is undernurished or dehydrated? How would the rulings be enforced? Would the UN jail the government?
While all of this is a great sentiment, the practical truth is that governments that do not provide protections for its people must be overthrown.
there goes that USA HOLY CHALICE again:
PRIVATIZATION.
equals
the FEW over the many .
I believe Article 25 can reasonably be interpreted to imply water as a right, either as food or as among other things necessary to provide "a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of [a person] and of his family" which include (but are not limited to) "food, clothing, housing," etc.
Additionally, Article 22 states that every member of society "is entitled to realization . . . of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality."
The impetus for this is probably the rampant privatization of water.
Were we to specifically include water as a human right, how could that prevent rampant privatization without some extra language that might have unforseen consequences regarding Article 17: "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others"?
Ecuador's new constitution states that water is a human right, but that did not stop Ecuador's President Correa from joiniong with Hugo Chavez in projecting to build a Petro Chemical plant in El Aromo, a major watershed supplying fresh water to the Ecuadorian coast. The plant will not only use a great deal of water, but it also threatenes to contaminate it.
The biggest problem with Human Rights right now is out and out hostility to the notion. As Jean Kirkpatrick said of the Human Right Commission's work: "A letter to Santa Clause. . . . Neither nature, experience, nor probability informs these lists of 'entitlements', which are subject to no constraints except those of the mind and appetite of their authors."
"What would you want Article 31 to be?"
Re-institute the Fairness Doctrine.
Include the right to voter initiatives and referendums with prison terms for paying people to collect signatures.
Then what would ACORN do for a living?
Yes, let's propose a right to food and water. We cannot work out in detail how to enforce that or make it legally binding until it exists in some form.
A right to food and water should become a right to unpolluted land and water sufficient for sustainable food/fuel/materials production for one's family. This is how you level the playing field against the elites who try to enslave the people to elite production.
What comes immediately to mind upon reading the entire "Declaration" (a noble document to say the least) is.........What happened?...rhetorical, obviously.
I would simply add "the right to water" to the 25th Article. The 31st would be to RE-ESTABLISH the previous Articles and create a Universal World Court of Justice to hear cases of abuse of any of these articles. Let us add something concrete to all this high sounding rhetoric.
The prohibitation of corporate 'personhood' would be a nice start.
yeah.....that's where the whole problem lies now.
but don't forget everyone, we gave them the money.
take your money out of big banks, investments in the market.
pull the plug!
Though I often find myself in opposition to your positions, I am in complete agreement. Equal protection under the laws and freedom of speech should only apply to natural born persons, not de jure ones.
I can't imagine anyone freely supporting corporate personhood.