Water 2020, 12, 340 22 of 28 IHL does not discuss in detail a right to an adequate standard of living implicitly encompassing a right to water (according to UNHRC resolution 15/9), leaving IDPs forced to flee armed conflict or still living in the midst of armed conflict legally unprotected regarding water access [99,100]. This is a significant lacuna in international law, given that in most of the world’s countries with IDP populations, access to clean water and sanitation for IDPs is significantly worse than for the general population [100,101]. The case of refugees and IDPs once again demonstrates gaping holes in international law for creating legal obligations for states and international organisations regarding the human right to water. 9. Conclusions The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the ‘state of emergency’ in which we live is not the exception but the rule. —Walter Benjamin [102] This article has demonstrated that international law regarding water access is largely unenforceable. This unenforceability reflects the lack of legal infrastructure regarding protection for the human right to water as it applies to people not afforded full protection by civil rights and the laws of their home states. International water law is nascent relative to its counterparts, including international humanitarian and human rights law, but by no means inherently undeveloped. It appears that some of the most promising developments on the human right to water for stateless and displaced people may occur outside the ‘proper bounds’ of international water law. As Cullet notes, regarding water issues, “states are losing their near monopoly on policymaking and law-making at the international level” [39]. As international water law has proven increasingly ill-equipped to ameliorate global water challenges, the number of refugees and IDPs escaping violent conflict has skyrocketed. The ICC, though flawed, appears to be one of the more likely fora through which jus post bellum will be sought for violations of the human right to water, as efforts in international legal reform to redress victim harm progress. Though, at the time of writing, nine disputes involving water have been brought before the ICJ since the 1990s, these have been disputes between states over equitable use or contamination of a shared water resource, most recently Dispute over the Silala (Chile v Bolivia) over whether a shared water body qualifies as a river subject to equitable use restrictions [103]. Water for the stateless, displaced, and residents of armed conflict zones have not been addressed at the ICJ or PCA, due partly to deficiencies in the UNWC identified in this study. The UNWC may suggest that the ICJ has jurisdiction over international water disputes, but it does not enforce this jurisdiction. Protracted situations involving water deprivation in the context of broader patterns of de-development or in the course of armed conflict have proven difficult to prevent through jus in bello/IHL and equally challenging to address post-conflict. This article has demonstrated multiple ways in which jus in bello and jus post bellum mechanisms for protection of the human right to water are lacking and has suggested multiple avenues through which both may be achieved in the future, including through the ICC, through the establishment of an enforceable international human right to water, and through formal updates to IHL or updated assessments and recommendations in the ICRC’s Geneva Conventions Commentaries. The results of the ICC’s investigation of the situation in Palestine will determine the extent to which the longstanding water crisis will factor. Enforceability remains a challenge for civilians in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, none of which are parties to the Rome Statute and do not appear likely to be referred to the ICC via the UNSC, as explained. The potential revisions to and evolution of international law discussed, including the establishment of an enforceable human right to water, do not suggest that law is a cure-all to simply resolve violations of the human right to water. Rather, this article demonstrates that relatively modest developments in international water law—including the adoption of the UNWC—have led to progress, such as the resolution of inter-state disputes at the ICJ.