Water 2020, 12, 340 7 of 28 which contributes to states’ hesitance towards international laws, instead favoring national laws that promote state sovereignty [43]. Clapham continues, “The story of the UN’s human rights treaties may leave us dissatisfied. . . . where is the pressure to ensure that these rights are realized in practice?” [43]. This article does not employ a moral understanding of the human right to water as an inherent human entitlement, but is interested in international law’s role in the protection of rights to resources. International law has functioned both successfully and unsuccessfully when applied to water rights disputes. Although legal principles for equitable management of water resources exist, these have proven lacking when it comes to establishing enforceable guidelines for the human right to water. 3.1. Background on The Human Right to Water Weiss argues: Legal instruments . . . will be crucial to dealing with the growing water crisis. The traditional legal principles upon which existing water management is based will likely be insufficient to deal with the water problems that loom from projected climate change, population growth, food production, increased industrialization, and ecosystem needs. While water law has evolved significantly over the past century, it will need to change further to address these challenges. [26] These inevitable pressures on equitable water management are compounded further by violent conflict. International law has proven insufficient in numerous ways regarding water access and quality. One of the most significant ways is absence of a normative definition of the human right to water. The lack of a treaty legally defining guidelines for the human right to water is not for lack of discussion of the matter. In 2002, General Comment No. 15 to the ICESCR declared a right to water implicit within existing Articles 11 and 12 [44]. In 2010, the UNGA issued aforementioned Resolution 64/292, which recognised a human right to water. Despite the progress represented by these developments, the UNGA declaration of a human right to water is limited, addressing “drinking water” and “sanitation”. Sanitation is an “analytically separate” issue because the right to water “has important intergenerational implications, which sanitation does not share” [26]. It must also be noted that the principles of Responsibility to Protect, R2P, are designed to protect civilians from mass atrocities. The Brookings Institution notes the “promise of R2P has been more noteworthy in its breach than in the honoring of . . . commitments” [45]. At the time of writing, R2P has not been invoked to protect a right to water, but logically includes this right. This article focuses on enforceability, however, and R2P faces serious enforceability challenges. There is little to suggest that R2P would drive humanitarian intervention to protect the right to water. Catarina de Albuquerque, former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation, concluded that the right to water must be considered according to three criteria: sufficient quantity, quality, and access reliability/regularity [46]. UNGA Resolution 64/292 does not specify how states must address these concerns or “equitable access” [46]. Equitable access’s significance is magnified when considering the privatisation of water resources and potential for price gouging, either by governments or private corporations to whom state water rights are outsourced. Thus, the UN definition of the human right to water is insufficient due to its failure to address multiple meanings of “equitable access”. When considering “equitable access”, it is essential to account for affordability. A prominent example of state failure to provide “equitable access” to water regarding affordability is Bolivia’s “Cochabamba Water War” protests (1999–2000), when the municipal water supplier Semapa was privatised, resulting in dramatic price spikes [47]. On the point of “water wars” not in terms of protest, but in terms of armed conflict being triggered due lack of equitable access, Joffé notes, “the thesis of wars over water use and access has been largely discredited” [8]. Mark Zeitoun explains, “[c]ombined together, the terms water and war immediately conjure images of high-tech fighter aircraft patrolling