Water 2020, 12, 340 8 of 28 menacingly over rivers”— Zeitoun astutely criticises these hyperbolic and reductionist arguments [13]. Rather, “water and war are intimately related” but water is typically not the sole cause of conflict [13]. A more nuanced understanding suggests, such as in Syria, water scarcity can exacerbate political tensions or, as in the Palestinian case, water restriction can be used as a means of hegemonic control to perpetuate military occupation. This article therefore views such cases not as “wars over water” per se, but demonstrations of water’s critical role in geopolitical conflict. The issues presented so far raise two central questions: (1) Is it possible, based on existing documentation, to develop a normative definition of the human right to water that accounts for quantity, quality, reliability, and “equitable access” both in terms of physical access and in terms of cost?; and (2) If a working normative definition can be established, can this definition have any impact on water rights unless codified into enforceable international legislation? 3.2. Existing Definitions of the Intragenerational and Intergenerational Human Right to Water Enforceable guidelines for an independent, legally binding human right to water have not been established, but recognition on both intragenerational and intergenerational levels exists in many intergovernmental organisation documents. The intragenerational human right to water is provision of a sufficient quantity of water that is of safe quality, is available within a reasonable distance, and is affordable, according to institutions including the World Bank, WHO, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). There are disparities, however, when it comes to definitions of sufficient quantity, safe quality, and reasonable access, ranging from water that “does not contain biological or chemical agents at concentration levels directly detrimental to health”, to considering “how exposure to a certain constituent of drinking water affects the overall risk of disease” [26,48]. Quantity disparities include a WHO recommendation of 20 L per person per day for personal and domestic needs, though WHO notes that increases correspond to significant health improvements [49]. Peter Gleick has argued that 50 L per person per day ought to be an absolute minimum [50]. Gleick’s higher estimate is in contrast to minimums of 20 L per person per day set by WHO, USAID, and the World Bank, which measure domestic use excluding water for cooking and cleaning [51]. It is also been argued that increasing availability of emerging waterless sanitation technologies may reduce needs [51]. This is unconvincing—water access, deemed a “crisis for the poor” [52], disproportionately affects the developing world. Until waterless sanitation technologies are universally accessible, 50 L per person per day is more sensible. Regardless, a 30 L difference in how daily minimums are calculated is not alone a barrier to determining normative guidelines. The definition of ‘reasonable access’ is tougher to pin down. Albuquerque defines reasonable proximity as “available within or in the immediate vicinity of each household as well as schools, workplaces, health-care settings and public places” [46]. USAID defines reasonable access as a direct in-home connection or public facility within no more than 200 m of the household [51]. Affordability is complex—given the vast disparity of global wealth distribution, no single monetary amount is universally applicable. Defining affordability is further complicated by the numerous sources many people in the developing world rely on for water supplies—often a combination of household connections, resellers, public and private wells, and rivers and streams [26]. Water from resellers typically costs 10–20 times more than water purchased through in-house utility connections [26]. Water that meets minimum expectations for “reasonable access” in terms of physical proximity and affordability often falls short in terms of quality and quantity available—water that is nearby and cheap does not help if it is at best inconsistently available and at worst not potable and potentially toxic [26]. On the subject of affordability, privatisation proponents (such as the World Bank and European Commission) have argued that privatisation increases efficiency [26]. Full privatisation has been implemented in the UK and France (though privatisation in these cases is still subject to critique). Overall, privatisation has had mixed outcomes, including disastrous results in Bolivia in 2000 [47], and in 1999 in South Africa where citizens could not afford water prices following privatisation,