Human Rights Council Concludes Interactive Dialogue on the Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation
The Human Rights Council this afternoon started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. It also concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation.
Alena F. Douhan, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, said that the world faced an enormous expansion in the use of unilateral sanctions, both primary and secondary; and of extraterritorial application of jurisdiction via sanctions, civil and criminal penalties, including against third country nationals, that resulted in the overwhelming growth of de-risking policies and overcompliance with unilateral sanctions. Overcompliance had become widespread, and was a significant new danger to international law and human rights. Secondary sanctions and overcompliance affected all areas of human rights of every individual and constituted serious constraints to the delivery of humanitarian aid even in the most critical situations.
Ms. Douhan said this issue could not be settled by domestic efforts only. Guiding principles needed to be drafted on secondary sanctions, overcompliance and human rights to establish rules to avoid overcompliance and to protect the rights and lives of people.
The Special Rapporteur spoke about her country visits to Zimbabwe and Iran. Zimbabwe and Iran spoke as countries concerned.
In the ensuring discussion, some speakers said that unilateral coercive measures continued to impede the enjoyment of human rights by individuals and Member States, and were used as tools for political, economic and financial constraints, violating the United Nations Charter, international humanitarian law, and the rules and principles of international law. Unilateral coercive measures and secondary sanctions and overcompliance impacted humanitarian assistance and the delivery of medical aid, whilst being used as a tool of political pressure by States. Some speakers urged all States that had applied unilateral coercive measures to rescind them forthwith, given their considerable humanitarian impact and destruction of bilateral ties between nations. One speaker pointed out that the Human Rights Council was not the appropriate forum to address the issue of autonomous sanctions.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue on unilateral coercive measures were European Union, Côte d’Ivoire on behalf of the Group of African States, Egypt, Cuba, Iraq, Venezuela, South Africa, Russian Federation, Namibia, China, Syrian Arab Republic, Armenia, Malaysia, Cameroon, Pakistan, Bolivia, Belarus, Algeria, Botswana, Mozambique, Malawi, Philippines, Sudan, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, and Iran.
Also speaking was the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, as well as the following non-governmental organization: Chinese Association for International Understanding, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Rahbord Peimayesh Research & Educational Services Cooperative, Medical Support Association for Underprivileged Iranian Patients, Jameh Ehyagaran Teb Sonnati Va Salamat Iranian, and Caritas International on behalf of World Evangelical Alliance and Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII.
Speaking in right of reply were Azerbaijan and Armenia.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with
Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation.
Mr. Arrojo-Agudo, in his concluding remarks, said not respecting the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent when it came to mining and mega-projects in their land could not be allowed, as this promoted the interests of companies whilst sacrificing the human rights of indigenous peoples. There was a need to promote national laws to allow for companies to be held responsible for their actions in indigenous territories. Countries should step up the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and their rights to clean drinking water and to sanitation, whilst providing them with funds to ensure that there was access to clean drinking water.
In the discussion on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, many speakers welcomed the report describing efforts to supply safe drinking water and sanitation facilities for local indigenous communities. The global water crisis and climate change seriously affected indigenous communities and vulnerable groups. Rural and marginalised communities had limited access to sanitation infrastructure and safe drinking water. Some speakers said all States had the obligation to protect the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples, and to better protect the health of indigenous people. Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and community water resources needed to be protected. One speaker said the current capitalist model of development threatened safe access to water and an eco-socialist approach to the provision of water was necessary.
Speaking were Iraq, Panama, Paraguay, Mexico, Maldives, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, UN Women, Venezuela, Jordan, Russian Federation, Namibia, China, Armenia, Netherlands, Malaysia, United States of America, Indonesia, Spain, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, Bolivia, Nepal, Ukraine, Tanzania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Gambia, Portugal, Kenya, Vanuatu, Hungary, Mozambique, Togo, Malawi, Holy See, Slovenia, Iran, Tunisia, and Cambodia.
Also speaking were Swedish Federation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights – RFSL, Istituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice delle Salesiane di Don Bosco, Beijing NGO Association for International Exchanges, Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Peace Brigades International, Conselho Indigenista Missionário CIMA, Franciscans International, Edmund Rice International Limited, Human Is Right, and Association pour la défense des droits de l’homme et des revendications démocratiques/culturelles du peuple Azerbaidjanais-Iran – “ARC”.
The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found . All meeting summaries can be found . Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-first regular session can be found .
The Council will next meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 15 September, to hold its biennial panel discussion on the right to development, on the theme of 35 years on: policy pathways to operationalising the right to development. It will then conclude the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. It is then scheduled to hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation
The interactive dialogue with Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found .
Discussion
Many speakers welcomed the report and described national efforts to supply safe drinking water and sanitation facilities for local indigenous communities. Some speakers said the global water crisis and climate change seriously affected indigenous communities and vulnerable groups. A gender-responsible approach to ensuring access to water and sanitation was needed. States, United Nations agencies and international organizations needed to support the development of water facilities in disadvantaged countries. Rural and marginalised communities had limited access to sanitation infrastructure and safe drinking water. Cost and affordability were barriers to developing such infrastructure.
The current capitalist model of development threatened safe access to water and an eco-socialist approach to the provision of water was necessary, one speaker said. Another speaker said that the report contained an overly broad interpretation of indigenous peoples’ collective rights. Western countries were responsible for violating the rights of indigenous peoples across the world through colonisation, and large-scale developments continued to pollute and block indigenous peoples’ water resources. These countries needed to do more to support indigenous peoples’ access to safe drinking water and sanitation. One speaker rejected the report’s claims regarding displaced persons’ lack of access to drinking water and sanitation in the country.
Interim Remarks
PEDRO ARROJO-AGUDO, Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, responding to the avalanche of questions and issues raised, said the topic discussed deserved the attention of all. He would respond to all questions in writing, individually. He appreciated the support received from so many countries. His other report this year, which he would present to the General Assembly shortly, was focused on impoverished peasant and rural communities, and so probably some of the interventions would find an adequate response in that report. As for efforts to achieve the equal participation of women, in particular with regard to women’s menstrual health and sanitation, this was an issue that he wished to examine further in both indigenous and non-indigenous populations. The New York Water Conference, and the Social Water Forum, convened by the Human Rights Council under the coordination of Spain and Bolivia, were two vital events, and should give a boost to the human rights approach, and should be historic as a space for meeting and direct dialogue between the United Nations system and social movements that were the defenders of water rights. It was the beginning of a dialogue which should continue.
Mr. Arrojo-Agudo said the many States that did not recognise the existence of indigenous peoples properly in their countries was an issue that was not manifest in the Human Rights Council. However, he wished to underline that denying identity and cultural diversity neither strengthened democracy nor promoted equity, but rather increased the risk of marginalisation and impoverishment of indigenous peoples by breaking their community ways of life linked to their territories, and particularly to their rivers, lakes and springs.
Discussion
Many speakers outlined national efforts to provide safe drinking water and sanitation to indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples needed concrete actions concerning the promotion of their rights to safe drinking water and sanitation. Access to safe drinking water should be considered a human right for all. One speaker said all States had the obligation to protect the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples, and to better protect the health of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and community water resources needed to be protected.
Climate change had gravely affected the availability of water resources, and there was a need to take immediate action to address its effects. Women and girls bore the brunt of finding safe drinking water for families in indigenous communities, and required further support. A speaker said that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons in indigenous communities were particularly vulnerable in terms of access to sanitation, and called for their perspectives to be included in the report. Some speakers expressed concern about the increasing privatisation of water services, which threatened indigenous peoples’ access to these services. Commercial activities led to pollution of indigenous peoples’ water supplies and threatened their health. Such activities needed to be monitored and kept in check.
Several speakers supported the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur to include indigenous peoples, particularly women and girls, in developing policies related to water and sanitation facilities. Sustainable water systems were crucial for achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6 on ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. A number of speakers expressed support for the Special Rapporteur’s continued efforts to promote access to safe drinking water to indigenous peoples. Promoting access to safe drinking water required a concerted global effort.
Concluding Remarks
PEDRO ARROJO-AGUDO, Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, in concluding remarks, said all actions under this agenda item and mandate needed to focus on the rights of women and girls. The Social Forum was also important. The New York Walker Conference would have to mark a time of historic change – both for countries and for non-governmental organizations, which were the drivers of change. There should be a holistic approach to the issue in the context of good governance. Unity made strength. There was a need to develop strategies for adaptation and ensure that indigenous peoples were involved directly when designing these, particularly those applying to their traditional territories and lands. Adaptation strategies needed to be preceded by a transitional transformation in which the international community saw hydro-electric power and other ecological ways of energy production. The Social Forum on Water and the Walker Conference in New York needed to be prepared and their potential and power tapped. All should participate in the dialogue, trusting in its outcome.
There had been questions on the content of the report, but he hoped for a frank dialogue with those Governments that had raised these, to put them into context or withdraw them if he had made mistakes. It was insufficient just to conclude agreements with indigenous peoples if they were not followed up afterwards. Three considerations to wrap up: not respecting the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent when it came to mining and mega-projects in their land could not be allowed, as this promoted the interests of companies whilst sacrificing the human rights of indigenous peoples; there was a need to promote national laws to allow for companies to be held responsible for their actions in indigenous territories; and countries should step up the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and their rights to clean drinking water and to sanitation, whilst providing them with funds to ensure that there was access to clean drinking water. It was unacceptable to prioritise an arms race: nobody today even questioned this, nor its impact on human rights. The human rights of indigenous peoples must be upheld.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights
Reports
The Council has before it the of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Alena Douhan, addressing secondary sanctions, civil and criminal penalties for circumvention and sanctions regimes, and overcompliance with sanctions, and reports on her visits to the and ().
Presentation of Reports
ALENA DOUHAN, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, said that the world faced an enormous expansion in the use of unilateral sanctions, both primary and secondary; and of extraterritorial application of jurisdiction via sanctions, civil and criminal penalties, including against third country nationals, that resulted in the overwhelming growth of de-risking policies and overcompliance with unilateral sanctions. Foreign companies subject to secondary sanctions could be blocked from doing business in or with the sanctioning State, be banned from using its financial markets or be prohibited from transactions involving its currency; while foreign individuals could be refused entry to the sanctioning country and have any assets there frozen. Overcompliance had become widespread, and was a significant new danger to international law and human rights. Secondary sanctions and overcompliance affected all areas of human rights of every individual and constituted serious constraints to the delivery of humanitarian aid even in the most critical situations.
This issue could not be settled by domestic efforts only. Guiding principles needed to be drafted on secondary sanctions, overcompliance and human rights to establish rules to avoid overcompliance and to protect the rights and lives of people. Secondary sanctions and overcompliance made States, businesses, humanitarian organizations and individuals look for alternative means to procure necessary goods, which resulted in growing costs, delays in delivery, growing risks of corruption and other types of transboundary crimes, and endangered the status of humanitarian organizations. The use of these raised many concerns from the perspective of various international laws.
Ms. Douhan said her country visit to Zimbabwe in October 2021 had demonstrated the devastating negative impact of overcompliance with unilateral sanctions towards all people of Zimbabwe. The Government was prevented from obtaining revenue to exercise public functions and provide essential services, resulting in the violation of various civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The sanctions had also prevented the Government from using resources to develop and maintain essential infrastructure, disaster response plans and social support programmes, which had a devastating effect on the whole population, especially vulnerable groups. Unilateral sanctions were forcing the Government, banks, public institutions, private companies and individuals to use informal, non-transparent mechanisms of trade and payments, thus adding to corruption rather than suppressing it. Due to the unavailability of new machinery and spare parts, medicine, food, seeds and fertilizers, the emigration of competent staff and the unavailability of financial resources, the people of Zimbabwe had limited access to public transportation, electricity, water and health care.
Her visit to Iran in May 2022 had demonstrated the extremely dangerous adverse effects of unilateral sanctions imposed by a number of States on the banking, financial and industrial sectors, transport and insurance companies, individuals and companies, exacerbated by threats of sanctions and secondary sanctions and overcompliance. Reduced Government revenues affected the Government’s planning and implementation of economic development and social policies. Due to the Governmental efforts to develop the domestic production of medicine and food, many impacts of unilateral sanctions in the food and health sectors had been mitigated, however, patients depending on foreign-produced medicines, medical equipment, spare parts and high-quality raw materials for pharmaceuticals had been enormously affected. Sanctions had also prevented the Government from investing resources to develop and maintain essential infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and agriculture infrastructure. Unilateral sanctions had also resulted in the reduction of social support programmes and impeded the delivery of humanitarian assistance by both local and international humanitarian actors. The use of unilateral sanctions, secondary sanctions and over-compliance had had an overall adverse effect on the broad spectrum of human rights in Iran.
Secondary sanctions, and civil and criminal penalties were illegal on various grounds, notably their imposition in support of primary sanctions whose own legality was dubious under international law. They violated due process guarantees and fundamental principles of international law. Ms. Douhan urged all States to eliminate or minimise overcompliance with unilateral sanctions by any appropriate means, and to remove or offset risks that led to overcompliance. She also called on States to ensure that domestic laws or regulations of any sort did not create incentives for companies to over comply with sanctions. She asked companies to examine how their compliance with sanctions, and any overcompliance, could negatively impact human rights, including abroad, and take corrective action. She urged States and international organizations to review and minimise the whole scope of unilateral sanctions, to take all necessary measures to guarantee that activities of businesses under their jurisdiction and control did not affect human rights; and to guarantee that sanctions did not affect goods or services necessary for the survival of a population.
Statements by Countries Concerned
Iran, speaking as a country concerned, said it was urgent for the international community to adopt a cohesive and coordinated approach to those responsible for unilateral coercive measures, including the United States and its allies, in the context of international law. The Iranian people were the main victims of the inhumane unilateral coercive measures imposed on them and designed as a means of war to commit crimes against humanity, persecution and genocide against the Iranian people, in direct contradiction of the United Nations Charter and international humanitarian law. Irreparable damages had been inflicted on the health and wellbeing of the whole society, especially the most vulnerable, and there was no so-called humanitarian exception, except on paper. Iran had taken various measures to mitigate the negative impacts of sanctions, but this should not be used to negate the responsibilities of the applicators of sanctions. These sanctions were inhumane and a crime against humanity, requiring the attention of the international community and the accountability of the perpetrators.
Zimbabwe, speaking as a country concerned, extended thanks to the Special Rapporteur for her thorough investigation. Her findings demonstrated that sanctions imposed by Western nations had affected all sectors of socio-economic development in Zimbabwe. Secondary sanctions and overcompliance had also impacted on Zimbabwe’s neighbours and on regional trade. Zimbabwe called for all sanctions against it to be lifted. The justification given by those who imposed sanctions was legally questionable. Zimbabwe welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s call for multilateral dialogue to resolve issues regarding sanctions. Dialogue with the European Union had led to progressive easing of some of its sanctions, but other States had in fact tightened sanctions. Zimbabwe expressed hope that the dialogue would encourage States to rethink unilateral sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Discussion
In the ensuing discussion, many speakers said that unilateral coercive measures continued to impede the enjoyment of human rights by individuals and Member States, and were used as tools for political, economic and financial constraints, violating the United Nations Charter, international humanitarian law, and the rules and principles of international law. Sanctions could create severe and undue suffering for individuals who had not committed crimes, as well as depriving them of their rights to access education, health, housing, and food. The marginalised groups suffering the most included women, children, those with disabilities, and the elderly. Some speakers said that unilateral coercive measures and secondary sanctions and their overcompliance impacted humanitarian assistance and the delivery of medical aid, whilst being used as a tool of political pressure by States.
Some speakers welcomed the work of the Special Rapporteur, saying that unilateral coercive measures were illegitimate and had a direct harmful effect on the sovereignty of States, harming developing countries and forming a serious obstacle to their efforts to bring about the socio-economic development of the State and of their people. Indiscriminate blockades were used by the powerful to reach geo-political ends, harming the wellbeing of peoples. Sanctions could also affect third-party countries, with a negative effect on human rights. Overcompliance with secondary sanctions had a negative impact on the most vulnerable, affecting efforts by non-governmental organizations to deliver support and aid. Banks were freezing funds, preventing payments for the purchase of food, medicine and medical teams, rendering the situation dire. Countries that were the objects of unilateral coercive measures would continue to call for the restoration of their dignity.
Some speakers urged all States that had applied unilateral coercive measures to rescind them forthwith, given their considerable humanitarian impact and destruction of bilateral ties between nations. However, one speaker pointed out that the Human Rights Council was not the appropriate forum to address the issue of sanctions. The international community should invest more in peaceful dispute settlements in order to protect and promote human rights at all levels.
Link:
