Water 2020, 12, 340 13 of 28 right to water may begin to be considered in ICC cases. Doing so is technically within the Court‘s jurisdiction, without any updates to existing laws. However, limitations within the UNWC and Geneva Conventions may pose obstacles to the Court’s interpretation of environmental destruction as the concept specifically applies to water access. Thus, the optimal “home” [26] for an enforceable human right to water still appears to be an independent treaty establishing clear definitions of minimum levels of water quality, quantity, and reasonable access that states must provide. The absence of this treaty makes it difficult, though not impossible, for the ICC to factor the right to water into its case selections, evaluations, and rulings. 5. A Legal ‘Dialogue’ Article 54 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, added in 1977, states: It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as . . . drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive. [34] Though seemingly simple for states to carry out, Article 54’s mandates are problematic in the context of contemporary water crises, particularly regarding protracted warfare and its impacts on stateless and displaced people. Additional Protocol I does not adequately establish legal procedures for addressing long-term subjugation of entire populations through water access denial. This law exemplifies how legal raw material to address water crises in protracted armed conflict situations partially exists but lacks enforceability. An international legal approach to contemporary water crises has been susceptible to criticism on the grounds that when facing urgent humanitarian crises, a focus on legal reform risks privileging what is ethically ideal rather than what methods achieve equitable access in the shortest time span. A counterargument demonstrates why legal analysis—in tandem with on-the-ground action—is key for achieving results compatible with ultimately resolving conflicts contributing to water access denial. This section explores that counterargument, placing Article 54 of the Geneva Convention into a ‘dialogue’ with a critical snippet of the UNWC. Article 7 of the UNWC states 1. 2. Watercourse States shall, in utilizing an international watercourse in their territories, take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other watercourse States. Where significant harm nevertheless is caused to another watercourse State, the States whose use causes such harm shall, in the absence of agreement to such use, take all appropriate measures, having due regard for the provisions of articles 5 and 6, in consultation with the affected State, to eliminate or mitigate such harm and, where appropriate, to discuss the question of compensation. [74,75] Five simple words in Article 7’s last line—"discuss the question of compensation”—are of paramount importance to denial of water access for stateless and displaced people in conflict zones. Article 7 means that, when “all appropriate” measures have been taken by one party in an armed conflict to avoid harm to another party but harm still occurs, the harm-causing party must “in consultation with the affected State . . . eliminate or mitigate this harm” and then “consider compensation” for harm already caused. There are three key reasons why this article is problematic. First, how is “tak[ing] all appropriate measures to avoid harm” defined? How can deliberate destruction of critical civilian infrastructure be distinguished from accidental destruction? The UNWC does not adequately define what “appropriate measures” to avoid harm would be for water infrastructure.