TOPIA 21 161

Astrida Neimanis

Bodies of Water, Human Rights and the Hydrocommons

ABSTRACT

Our own bodies, which are primarily composed of water, elucidate the problem of thinking about bodies in binaristic terms as either “natural” or “cultural.” We are both materially and semiotically entwined with other bodies of water in a gestating, differentiating and interpermeating relation. Tis paper begins by laying out this relation as an “onto-logic” of amniotics, which is in part clarified through Gilles Deleuze’s theory of difference and repetition. I move on to propose that thinking about our amniotic relations to other human and more-than-human watery bodies can help us reconsider the rapid development of new hydrological technologies, water commodification and other stresses on our water resources. While these mounting crises have led to international calls for recognizing water as a human right, I suggest that the promotion of a radically embodied “hydrocommons” might be better suited for negotiating the interbeing of bodies of water on this planet. RÉSUMÉ

Nos corps, dont la matière première est l’eau, nous permettent d’écarter le problème consistant à penser le corps en termes binaires, soit « naturel », soit « culturel ». ontologie ontologie de

», qui », serait peut-être

is water will leave you, spreading spreading you, leave will water is T érentiation érentiation et d’inter imprégnation. ff ¤ communauté communauté hydrique

ect, politics, economics and ethics—all economics of this is in politics, ect, ff », », idée éclaircie en partie par la théorie de Gilles Deleuze sur la

érence érence et la Je répétition. suggère ensuite que le fait de penser nos relations e “nature” of our bodilye “nature” water is meaningful and just meaning-making, as the ere ere is a glass of water on the table beside pick You you. it up and take a sip. is water will feed your blood and nourish your muscles, cradle your organs ff emotions, enables our reproductive proliferation. But moreover, our bodies of water of bodies our moreover, But proliferation. reproductive our enables emotions, open up to and intertwine with the other bodies of water with whom we share have have cultural or social meaning not despite their wateriness, but rather because our expresses limbs, our animates water watery their constitution: through and of Our bodies thus reveal to us the problem with any of reductive water dichotomization as natural or cultural. While the 60-90 comprised of water per is undoubtedly cent biological, we nonetheless live of our bodies ourselves of that is water as brimming with cultural economic, and otherwise semiotic potentiality. T fluidity and porosity, leakiness of our selves are no mere Ourmetaphors. bodies may may be bottled and sold by those who claim ownership? All of this all biology, all of this a of this chemistry, that glass of water from sip. which you your your emotions will be diverted or dammed when displacing this the hydroelectric cariboupower, and water the Cree? Which is of your senses converted into will dry up as this water is relentlessly extracted from its centuries-old home in an underground aquifer northwest Which of Toronto? of your thoughts will be damaged irremediably is water of barrels four to two while poisoned and polluted to wash every barrel of bitumen extracted in Northern Alberta? Which of your movements will be squeezed from the earth, along with so this that water, they plant the next time you go to the And, bathroom. in all of these leave-takings, this water will carry small meanings and materialities of you with Whichit. of T T and serve as vital conduit and communicator between your farthest flung bodily long. for yours remain not will it But outposts. across your skin when you sweat, rolling down your cheeks when you expressing cryyour ecstasy when and you It love. will begin its journey to the filtration de valoriser le concept radical de « sur cette planète. la coexistence de corps pour négocier mieux adapté d’eau l’amniotique di peut humains nous et aider plus amniotiques qu’humains, aux autres corps d’eau, hydrologiques, technologies nouvelles des développement rapide le reconsidérer à en ressources les sur pesant phénomènes autres les et l’eau de commercialisation la conscience de prise une suscité ont graves plus en plus de crises des que Tandis eau. internationale soit pour considérée je comme que un propose l’eau droit humain, d’eau d’eau dans une relation de gestation, de di Cet article commence par exposer cette relation comme une « Nous Nous sommes à la fois matériellement et sémiotiquement liés à d’autres corps

TOPIA 21 162 TOPIA 21 163 3 e very T erence erence is ff erence between between erence ff . . I propose that this e amniotic interval rather T amniotics relation inevitably persists does inevitablypersists relation 2 e amnion literally establishes the watery the establishes literally amnion e T erence. In an erence. the amniotic membranerelation, that separates ff e problematic nature of this relation is becoming increasingly clear T Our bodies of water necessarilyare inaugurated into with a relationship 1 erentiate, but erentiate, permeable enough to facilitate this exchange. Furthermore, ff erentiates a body from its gestational habitat. So as we repeat as bodies of water, water, of bodies as repeat we as So habitat. gestational its from body a erentiates is understanding of the amnion and its purpose, location and relations suggests suggests relations and location purpose, its and amnion the of understanding is ff interpermeation is never symmetrically reciprocal. establishes relinquishment a and relation mutual of debt, response. gift, di necessary the for accounts what is relations these of asymmetry di we also express di the gestational body from the proliferating body of enough solid is repetition amnion the and passage: di intervalof an rather but barrier, divisive a not to di T to me a certain logic—or a specific modality of being—in which bodies of water our being is facilitated As by but a bodies wateryof partake. water, environment, necessarilyas bodies of water we incorporate element within us. that gestational are We thus a repetition of the water that gestates but us, a repetition that also amnion facilitates the watery world necessary for the gestation of all life for those for life all of gestation waterythe necessaryworldforthe facilitates amnion creatures that have left water in favour of a terrestrial habitat (even if like some, sea). the to returned since have whales, habitat necessarygestational for of life. the proliferation An Onto-logic of Amniotics An amnion is the innermostamniotic membrane that the encloses contains the embryo it of a and mammal, amniotes), as known otherwise (animals reptile or bird fluid that surrounds the gestating fetuses of these In amniotes. other the words, for recognizing water as a human right, an onto-logic of us for amniotics to water requires recognizing as a human right, might “hydrocommons” a of promotion the that suggest I ecopolitics; this rethink the interbeingbe better suited for this planet. negotiating of bodies of water on onto-logic onto-logic can help us reconsider the precarious relation between human bodies of water and the other-than-human bodies of water to whom we are intimately connected. in contemporary water crises and the suspect ways in which we this are planet’s managing water resources. While these crises have led to international calls In this I paper, first explore how the biological materiality of our bodies is extricably in- bound up in their cultural this or exploration by describing philosophical one logic according to meanings. which our I bodies of water undertake express themselves, which I call an onto-logic of species. the rest of the earth’s water that is neither merely biological nor “naturalcultural” a such becauseonly just But social cultural. or or cultivating at adept necessarily are water, of bodies human as we, that mean not way. nurturing in a responsible this relationship this planet—those bodies in which we frombathe, which we drink, into which companion multitudinous our constitute and gardens our grace which excrete, we , e of T how way ough the ough Amniotics T 5 erence of beings. erence of beings. ff e passage from body of water T that seemingly disparate beings share. share. beings disparate seemingly that erentiation, repetition and interpermeation. repetition erentiation, 4 ff thanks to whom to thanks ese bodies include plant human and other-than-human animals, erentiation erentiation and interpermeation. Although this narrative is in T ff and when use water, we drink water, we harbour it, it sustains and protects us, it , ff among among specificallyand between human human bodies and of non-human water, bodies of water? How is the natural expressed through the cultural, and how is bodies might teach us about what it means to be a body of water in philosophical in water of body a be to means it what about us teach might bodies and cultural terms. What sort of ethical and political relations are inaugurated bodies of water themselves. As an onto-logic, amniotics is not a theory I try to apply to try it I should theoryMoreover, be stressed a that the not onto-logic is of amniotics amniotics is suggested by onto-logic, an As themselves. water of bodies of immanent lifebut expression ratherfor a whichradically I material, to bodies, While can scientific accounts formulation. philosophical am seeking an adequate social, while and terms, own their on wateryrelations these and explain processes ethical or politicalcultural, relations could never be definitively severed from the biological materiality of I water, am wondering what the interbeing of watery specifically suggests that one way of watery being involves the aforementioned di cycles of gestation, of water. In short, the onto-logic of amniotics can albeit one, but are bodies be human and primarily applied water, of choreography composed to any material a philosophically significant example, among these watery bodies. As an onto- logic, amniotics does not suggest that all of these bodies of water are the same in terms but of rathertheir being, that bodies only of water the share a amniotics connected is noted, be must it Nor, water. of bodies are they because being onto-logic that watery bodies or relations of bodies might express. or otherwise. or otherwise. life, fungi, bacteria and protists, as well as elemental and geophysical bodies of As we water. shall this see, onto-logic even holds for some technological bodies As opposed to the way in which ontology is traditionally understood, an onto- logic does not propose to solve the question of reveal Being, or nor describe all does of it being’s facets or purport potential expressions. to Like a template, an onto-logic can highlight something that helps us understand a common where suggested onto-logic the animals, of group specific a to belongs technically amnion by this amniotic relationship reveals the commonality of wateryamniote bodies, that I call “amniotics.” that I call An onto-logic is a common way of being expressed across a di leaves leaves us—we are always, to some in extent, it. to body of water is never merely metaphoric, but rather radically material. watery condition of being out literallyof and flows frominto, beings themselves in a multiplicitous hydrological cycle repetition, of di becoming—evolutions of gestation, one sense blandly this scientific, amniotic relation also opens up a philosophical water of bodies of onto-logic an suggest also waterybecomings these proposition: We We are created in we water, gestate in we water, are born into of an di atmosphere the two bodies and the active proliferation of life that accompanies their relation. relation. their accompanies that life of proliferation active the and bodies two the

TOPIA 21 164 TOPIA 21 165 rough rough T erentiation erentiation or capacity , ff ering, becoming becoming ering, ff erent erent time, perhaps in ff e embryo expresses the erence of water continues continues water of erence ff T erent. erent. ff erentiation, erentiation, is all that can truly repeat. erence erence and repetition teaches us, our common ff ff erentiation. For Deleuze, this process of di of process this Deleuze, For erentiation. ff erence and repetition helps us understand how our bodies our how understand us helps repetition and erence ff erent” except its repetition, or force except of its becoming repetition, erent” ff erence erence is selected and distributed. there Accordingly, is nothing ff e gestational virtual helps us understand proliferative cap-the creative, T erent place. Yet such an understanding of repetition, Deleuze explains, ff erentiation, even as its brute materiality, one might say, seemingly repeats. might say, one even as its brute materiality, erentiation, erent, to other strata—ebbing, dripping, raining, flushing. Our planet produces produces planet Our flushing. raining, dripping, strata—ebbing, other to erent, erent—perhaps erent—perhaps not in its chemical scientific properties, but in terms of its erence, erence, or the force of di ff ff ff ff nonetheless is part of its material “reality”; this virtual potential is as “real” (and as (and “real” as is potential virtual this “reality”; material its of part is nonetheless ontologically substantial) as the actual body (Deleuze 1994; Deleuze and Parnet 2002). elucidate this concept of di of concept this elucidate is a form of gestation. He uses the image of the embryo to describe potential the latent held by a becoming body that repetition is never (Deleuze exhausted in 1994: which the yet everyactual, 118, to process attached is that indetermination of of cloud 214-15, that or virtual, 250-51). but rather because of water’s “closed” system that the di the that system “closed” water’s of because rather but Because to this generate water itself. it is is alwaysalways becoming, seeking out di Deleuze also elaborates the concepts of virtuality and the embryonic to help drink, the drink, water that carries nutrients the to water my that foetalcushions body, my body as I bump di always into returns, which and a expel, and chair, excrete the I water the body; water that protects the body within my di of, spite in not is it yet here, already always was which that to addition in water no of water express an onto-logic of amniotics: although the water we are is always coming from somewhere and moving di somewhere new, this singular up takes return water Each potential. gestational and is meanings rhythms, forms, always expressions: evaporation, condensation, precipitation, transpiration; the water I that “the unifies di force, cyclical a is repetition then, Deleuze, For 41). 28, 1994: (Deleuze produce to this cycle through but what returns is always di theorydi of Deleuze’s a di conceals the way in which, through di distribution and temporal displacement, repetition, di Deleuze and the Difference and Repetition of Water the Difference and Repetition Deleuze and As Deleuze’s theory terms in primarily repetition conceptualize to of us leads repetition of understanding di of the identical—what repeats is the same, only at a di sketch out one way in which the matter of our watery bodies does indeed “matter.” “matter.” indeed does bodies watery our of matter the which in way one out sketch Insight into canthis “mattering” be gained by more explicitly thinking through bodies our which cyclesin hydrological the of meaning other-than-biological the of water participate. the cultural indebted to the natural? Exploring our bodies of water through the notion of a materially grounded onto-logic allows me to ask and such questions, e T er new erences erences ff ff erent erent bodies of water can sustain and ff is embryonic unknowability seeps from T erentiate from our watery others through this from waterythrough erentiate our others erence erence and repetition further complicates ff ff erence erence and repetition can be mapped on and through ff old of di ff erentiator and connector of our meaningful interbeing. We see more erentiator and connector We of our meaningful interbeing. ff erence—what sort of social and political responses to other wateryother to politicalsortand responses social bodies of erence—what bodies of water? ff erentiation always remains a creative force. always a creative erentiation remains is description of watery di ff In the remainder of I this explore paper, how an onto-logic of amniotics might help us rethink our ecopolitical paradigms and strategies for ensuring protection of our planet’s water as a necessary resource for life. How does amniotics resist the call for explicit recognition of water as a human right? How does amniotics open to a reframing of “the lead commons”? To into this let discussion, us first briefly remind ourselves of the situation that has necessitated such ecopolitical in the first place. endeavours while demanding our interconnection? What are our specific responsibilities as human gestate, interpermeate with and di and interpermeatewith gestate, radically embodied hydrological cycle—that is, if maintain we as we even acknowledge another, one from that discrete semiotically nor we materially neither are di our the at habitats gestational our to thanks give we might How us? of demanded are the cultivate we can How us? within habitats same those nurture we as time same further proliferation of watery life? How might we account for our di time. Following time. from I this, the propose, onto-logic of amniotics can o grounds for thinking about how vastly di repeatedly water, of bodies as all, we that acknowledge we If another. one nurture proliferative proliferative life force, teeming below and seeping through and across our sur- as di faces, clearly how amniotics not only describes a gestation singular of an but amniote, suggests relational an onto-logic for instance the interbeing in of bodies the of water more generally. Moreover, this onto-logic powerfully traditional metaphysical Western presuppositions challenges of Being as our concomitant with and space in discrete as self-realized, as individualism, humanistic anthropocentric Deleuzian sca these same bodies, we can apprehend the water of our bodies emerging as a all of water’s gestational potential already held latent within its materiality. virtual is and inexhaustible, hence water might be better described as an “open/ closed” system. Even as water continues to cycle di through endless repetitions, T any understanding of the water of our mechanical bodies animator as of mere biological anatomic function form. By or appreciating the way in which a of as a closed system, this does not mean that what is gestated by this materiality by is gestated mean that what this does not of as a closed system, is predictable or knowable in advance. acity of water as a Even though life our force. planetary water might be thought

TOPIA 21 166 TOPIA 21 167 erentiation erentiation (through strengthening Technologies such as Technologies these acequia, 6 ff ese acequia express the relation of gestation T echnologies and Amniotic Imbalance and Amniotic echnologies T is choice of phrase—new hydrological technologies—underlines the fact that is water is not disappearing, but being transformed and rerouted, most often in often most rerouted, and transformed being but disappearing, not is water is e water crisis our planet is like currently the facing cyclehydrological is, itself, along along with the drip irrigation systems of Israel and India (de Villiers 387- 2003: 89; Pearce 2006: 373-76), or the blue, garden roofscapes that are increasingly biodiversity), repetition (the sustainability of the long-standing system perseveres perseveres system long-standing the of sustainability (the repetition biodiversity), although the water flowing through the ditches continually moves on to other, new expressions) and interpermeation (as the meaningful connections between the human, non-human, vegetable and geological participants in San Luis and the surrounding community are sustained). logic of amniotics I describe above. For example, the traditional acequia logic systems, example, of amniotics For I describe above. or irrigation ditches, of the upper Rio Grande Valley in Colorado embody the proliferative life force of water. (as soils, plants and animals flourish), di T hydrological beaver, the as old as least At new. nothing is engineering hydrological planetary our on impact adverse little with recently until existed have technologies In ecosystems. technological fact, bodies of water may also partake in the onto- unprecedented unprecedented in human history (de Villiers 2003: 6-18; Moreover, although Postel 1997: contemporary xi-xii). water thinkers and nonetheless virtuallyall writers woes, our remedy technologyto of potential the on express views varying agree that our current crises have been significantly exacerbated by some of our and specifically technologies. new hydrological human technological projects, water, but who has access to water, and at what cost—financial and otherwise. and at what cost—financial to water, but who has access water, While a fraught and tenuous to relation our planet’s geophysical bodies of water is certainly nothing new in terms of the evolutionary history of species on this planet, the magnitude, global scale and acceleration of our current crises are quality: Is our water fresh or increasingly salty? Frozen or flowing? Where we need we Where flowing? or Frozen salty? increasingly or fresh water our Is quality: it or where we Clear don’t? or clouded? Disease-free or cholera-ridden? Home is water usable if even And, tailings? crudeonlyoil or populations, fish healthy to furtherabundant, crises assert themselves in terms of control and management, to access has one whether only not ask to need We profiteering. privatizationand the globe, on every inhabited continent, streams and rivers drasticallyand deep shrinking, and ancient run aquifers are being critically depleted. dry, lakes are T species’ companion many and human current our for unusable it render that ways the crisis Importantly, of needs. supply is intimately linked to the crisis of water not one coherent crisis, but rather a series water, of of overlappingout running is crisesworld the that that assumes exacerbate opinion popular While other. each prehistoric since basicallyunchanged fact in is earth on water of amount total the around freshwatersupply: of crisis a have not do we mean not does this But times. New Hydrological New Hydrological T

7 cient, cient, ffi is is also the story T ommon Wealth? ommon Wealth? is is the storythe is is corporatizedof water C T is is the story of the monumental dams T erentially intertwined. Even while we have ff erentiation, erentiation, many NHTs are stretching this ff erentiating erentiating rhythm. ff is is the story of straightening out rivers to facilitate shipping lanes on the for example, through wastewater management plans, water rights regimes, we we still might not know how to respond adequately to other watery bodies with whom we are gestationally and di been responding to our morphing geophysical bodies of water all the time— inadequate access to water by the year 2025 (Shrybman the year to water by 1). access inadequate 2007: On How to Respond: Human Rights or As feminist philosopher Nancy Tuana so aptly notes, “[i]t is easier acknowledge we if even to words, other In posit 209). (2008: an it” ontologypractice to than that our own watery selves are neither ontologically discrete nor self-su the trend toward the commodification of water that spurs them on, an estimated the the commodification toward trend of water that spurs them on, 5.5 billion or people, more than two-thirds of the world’s willpopulation, have to other bodies of human water, or otherwise (Barlow and Clark 2002: 238; de if bodies VilliersUnder of the water influence 17). 2003: enter of a NHTs, cycle replicas. homogenizing and invasive identical, in return bodies these repetition, of T Mississippi (Bijker 2007; Protevi 2006), or mining and commodifying water to facilitate that ubiquitous plastic bottle far too many of us have at hand (Barlow and Clarke 2002: 142-50; Glennon 2003). Largely thanks to such NHTs and bodies of water or they literally leave behind, in their wake. of golf fountains courses, and green lawns in the middle of a southwestern U.S. desert that feed one human desire while denying the benefits of this onto-logic routes routes of interconnectivity may be so radically rearranged that gestation loses its proliferative, di over the Volga in Russia and the Narmada in India (de Villiers 2003: Roy 127-51; 2001: 62-86), the James Bay hydroelectric projects (Richardson in 2008) and Northern the Quebec manufactured Aral Sea to canalsengineeringseek Such of feats grand 183). 2006: in Young Central 113-26; Villiers2003: Asia (de “bring water to the (Pearce 2006: people” but 289-301), remain ignorant of the has led to droughts and aquifer depletions in Pakistan, Egypt and Nevada, U.S.A. U.S.A. Nevada, Egyptand Pakistan, in depletions aquifer and droughts to led has (de Villiers 2003: 152-58). Under the influence of NHTs, a body of water’s tain this same relation. Rather than supporting our onto-logic of interpermeation, interpermeation, of onto-logic our supporting than Rather relation. same this tain gestation, repetition and balanced di logic to untenable limits and critically rechoreographing our many planet’s geophysical bodies of For water. example, under the influence of NHTs, if geophysical bodies of water can collect enough means to sustain themselves, leftnothing theyhave gestation. to give to mining by Coca Cola in India (Mathiason 2006) and industrial irrigation that the balance of the amniotic relations I described above. I described above. relations of the amniotic the balance sus- not do below) them to refer I as NHTs, (or hydrotechnologies new many But appearing in cities such as Vancouver and Montreal (Rose 2007: 58-60), nourish and 58-60), (Rose Montreal appearing2007: in cities such Vancouver as

TOPIA 21 168 TOPIA 21 169

8 at T er paradigms of response that could that response of paradigms er erent erent possibilities for taking up the ff ff ectively and equitably through specific ff ectiveness, practicability and—not least—their and—not practicability ectiveness, ff is comment, as well as the legal scholarship of many experts, experts, many of scholarship legal the as well as comment, is T orts need to be consolidated in the explicit recognition of water as ff er only a limited of appreciation the role and meaning of geophysical water in ect bodies In of the water. remainder of I this want paper, to briefly examine ff ff as the assumed custodians of water and well-being their to populations’ manage our planet’s water more e thoughtfully, means of implementation. national explicit right to water in their constitutional law (Bakker 2007: 438; Young 2006: 2006: Young 438; 2007: (Bakker law constitutional their in water to right explicit argue rights-proponents steps, positive these Despite 50). 2004: al. Scanlonet 64; that these e a human right in a specific, binding, international Such treaty. not a only move alleviate would the burden of the but water-poor, also pressure governments to dignity, to among dignity, others (Young 2006; constitutional Gleick the 1998; Scanlonin recognized et implicitly al. 2004). also is right human a necessarily is water law of more than fifty through either countries, a right to safe drinking water or the right to a healthy environment (Scanlon et al. 2004: 42-50). South Africa, and are more globally recently distinguished Uruguay, in their recognition of an Rights of 2002 recognizes the right to water as the cornerstone for realizing all rights. human other outlines how the right to water is already implicit in the internationally declared righttheand health, righttothe food, rightto legally andenshrined life, rightto is a basic human need, it must be concomitantly recognized as human a right fundamental (Gleick 1996; 1998). Although the right to water is currently not spelled out as such in any of the major United Nations treaties or conventions, General some towards progress this Notably, recognition has already been made. Cultural and Social Economic, on Committee Nations United the of 15 Comment In the shadow of increasing recognition of the troubling impact of many NHTs, we are now hearing an escalating call from guaranteed be water should that right activists moral a around as both the right: worldhuman a as to water recognize to all and humans, also as a legal right that should be explicitly protected in the becausewater Arguably, machineryexpanding rightshuman law. international of remedy of social injustice. My interest here, however, is to examine the remedy however, of extent My social to interest here, injustice. which these paradigms are able to cultivate an onto-logic of amniotics. As will we see, each of these responses creates di of amniotics. onto-logic an “doing” challenge of actually a human a as water callrecognize international to growing the responses: such two and right; the call to Both support discourses and a practices water of commons. important of variety a to according analyzed be could commons and rights human e political their including criteria, o bodies of water. to other relation o to nonetheless, made, been have Attempts embrace the multifaceted ways in which we relate to, rely on and reciprocally privatization schemes and disaster preparedness plans—these ecopolitical tools and the paradigms upon which they are built are mostly narrow in focus; they e 2008 appointment appointment 2008 e T us the question is raised as T ciency of the freeSuch water allotment (Bond n.d.). ffi cacy of the international human rights machinery and its ffi cient solutions to a solvable problem. However, South African water ectively can the paradigm of human rights sustain and nurture an onto- ffi ff e first problem with the human right to water concerns the grounding of this e campaign for the right to water is gaining ground, spurred on particularly on spurred by ground, gaining campaignis righte for water the to inevitable slip of such declarations into unable to legislate foron of our these dimensions reliance same non-quantifiable “minimum lifeline amounts” appears naturalcultural watery Whilebodies. UN General Comment 15 seemingly the recognizes the well-being, spiritual and social cultural, our for water of importance the widespread conviction among rights-advocates that “[t]here is enough fresh the that insist rights-advocates many needs,” human of all meet to earth on water (Filmer- needs basic quantifiable meet to management equitable on be must focus 229). Wilson 2005: the the standpoint ethicalFrom of amniotics, motivation of such calls cannot be faulted, and the question of management indeed requires urgent attention. But this quantifiable basic needs approach raises other questions in relation to our amount) should be taxed. In other words, a cornerstone guaranteedBond of is implementation. not alone in his quantityconclusions; because of remains the either because of the cost of the water card homelessness itself, (and hence tap- or the brute insu lessness), simply or government, the of part the on faith bad as interpreted be may problems as insu specialist and anti-privatization advocate Patrick Bond notes that the way to optimal guarantee the right to water in South Africa would be to provide a larger free lifeline amount of water to each person, while luxury use (above a certain that can run through a home’s taps (e.g., 50 litres per day, per resident), or prepaid prepaid or resident), per day, per litres 50 (e.g., taps home’s a through run can that kilolitres six (e.g., water “free” of certaina amount provide that cards meter water per month, per household). Yet in such cases substantial needs remain unmet, critiques of the right to while water, also engaging in a analysiscritical human rights of international jurisprudence. naturalcultural T (Gleick 1996; to a rightbasic water in “access requirement” terms of quantitative 1998). In South Africa, for example, the right to water has been freeof amount the implemented regulate that taps water “trickler” seriesvariouslya of through terms (cf. terms Bakker 2006: But (cf. 64). 2007: 438; my Young specific question here is: how e logic of amniotics? My exploration of this question draws on various specific of Canadian Maude Barlow—one of the world’s most vocal advocates right for to water—as the the UN’s first Senior Advisor on water issues underlines this not all Yet momentum. view the promise of the right to water so unequivocally. Some criticisms are lodged less against the right are to aimed at water the ine specifically, as they dubious enforcement mechanisms more generally. to whether enshrining a more explicit right to water would remedy much in real Canada’s own Council of Canadians and the Polaris Institute, but joined by many many by joined but Institute, Polaris the and Canadians of Council own Canada’s world. the throughout organizations grassroots and activist T

TOPIA 21 170 TOPIA 21 171 e first of these is the fluid ontology of T

9 needs of the thirsty individual before the law at any given time over the of needs the watery web of the ignore we that arguing beings not am I return. in that sustain and gestate must she which gestated and sustained that individual, and Declaration on the Right to Development) where the rights of peoples to natural to peoples of rights the where Development) to Right the Declarationon resources are also human foregrounded, rights jurisprudence nonetheless grants primacy to the individual discrete as the beneficiary of any 1982; right (Panikkar Hence the call Sengupta 3). for 2000: explicitly granting a right to water to each human according individual, to human rights jurisprudence, must prioritize the leaks and flows. Interpermeation continues to challenge the logic of the right to water when the to we granted is priority paradigm, rights human the within that fact the consider Nations United 1986 the as (such cases in Even rights. of subject the as individual bodies that become, evaporate, while move, flow, also interpermeating all other bodies of water. Guaranteeing water for bodies within an territory arbitrarily bounded defies the onto-logic primarythe remain states of guarantor nation geopolitical as long As themselves. according to which bodies ontology relational a to of respond to will unable paradigm be this rights, human of water express machinery could hold states accountable for what goes on in their territories, how how territories, their in on goes what for accountable states hold machinery could could this machinery address problems that defy for entity the accountable ultimately the as notion state, of the can How sovereign altogether? boundaries state be to refuses that resource a regulate population, its to water to right the ensuring contained? Bodies of water—of all kinds—are not stable or discrete but bodies, right to water, we see how our interpermeating water sources refuse to be contained contained be to refuse sources water interpermeating our how see we water, to right by them. In such machineries, enforcement is premised on the the sovereignty nation of state, whereby nation states are responsible for ensuring of protection human rights within their borders. Even if the international human rights Similarly, Similarly, a human rights paradigm interpermeations of our bodies of water. is unable to accommodate the geophysical bodies of water the from which we draw in order to satisfy our basic various guaranteeto a required machineriesbe legal the examine would that we If needs. a basic needs approach quantifies water independent of context and situatedness that imbue water with far more more ways than one, than and our basic quantifiable water needs use-value. are not We only Ourphysiological, survivecyclebut implication within the naturalcultural. hydrological is not only indeed, in political and cultural. ethical, but social, biological, amount of water address the central importance of certain bodies of water to First First to water of bodies certain of importance central the address water of amount has “flows-both-ways” the that Echamamish River example, people? For Nations served as a sacred site for the Cree long before the arrival of Europeans in what is now called Manitoba (Canadian Heritage Rivers a human rights platform with Board Despite declared to intentions the contrary, 2006). 2000: 14; Petersen and relation to water. We are thus left with an understanding of We water that looks and to relation water. merely and primarily to our physiological basic How needs. could a guaranteed e is T T

We 10 12 In many ways many In 11 erentiated erentiated rights of some; hence the ff erentiation erentiation is a simultaneous movement of an onto-logic of amniotics. e problems with such individualistic humanism are further highlighted if we ff between between the equal rights of all and many the Indeed, di roof. own rights’ human under itself reveals equality of impossibility (on (on racial non-discrimination, the rights of women, or the rights of for the example) child, establishes an irresolvable tension in human rights jurisprudence has never been ultimately fulfilled it law, nonetheless in remains the the key sentiment implementation to which of this are law human apparently aspires. all rights “born free and equal Declaration in of dignity Human Rights, and Article rights” 1), and (UN our Universal entitlement to is these “without rights distinction of any kind, such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, status” other or birth property, origin, social or national opinion, other or political rights treaty articulated explicitly more for need the time, same the At (Article2). rights law, and rights the law, philosophy that grounds Just it. as the notion of the discrete individual is a cornerstone for human rights this law, paradigm also rests upon the fundamental principle of non-discrimination. While non-discrimination the very notion of private Ourproperty. bodies of water are we inherently should Perhaps ask common whether and the shared. human rightspublic, tradition to this onto-logic? could ever be adequate Moreover, alongside our many di interpermeations we have poses a also further problem in terms of noted the subject positions established that in human sovereignty over a nation’s own resources continues this tradition. this continues resources own nation’s a over sovereignty the notion of rights and the claim to private property by the individual human the onto-logic of our bodies have Yet of always water defies gone hand-in-hand. Water Council (viewed by Water many anti-privatization activists as pro-privatization) and many large multinational corporations advocating for the privatization Such defenders of water the servicesright to water 439-40). insist (Bakker 2007: of on the importance of ends rather But than while means. the coupling of human must we alliance, unlikely an seem may privatization/commodification and rights the in considered be to rights first the of one propertyprivatewas that remember evolution Western of human rights, and the contemporary doctrine of national the right to water. In fact, Bakker remarks, the campaign for the right to water has water to right the for campaign the remarks, Bakker fact, In water. to right World the the Bank, World the including bedfellows, strange very some by joined been individualistic humanism of human rightsindividualistic jurisprudence. T consider how in many states instances, such as South Africa have at attempted, least in part, to guarantee the quantifiable right to water through privatization. Indeed, as Bakker (2007) points out, there is nothing that commodification necessarily and in corporatization rejects the privatization, of the notion of rights satisfyingfor means appropriate be to these feels government a if resources water river, the or tree, the river, land itself that may also be thirsty is not sustainable. co-implication and interpermeation of amniotic relations are silenced under the thirsty individual, but only that quenching this thirst without attending to the

TOPIA 21 172 TOPIA 21 173 erent erent ff cient to simply“the extend ffi . . Without this a capacity, human erence, much less respond to it. to less respond much erence, is symbiotic-evolutionary gestation ff T erence ff as di erentiated human bodies of water, it is even more more even is it water, of bodies human erentiated e current paradigm of human rights, on its own, is own, its on rights, human of paradigm current e ff T erence erence ff ect a body of water’s gestational capacity in an (unknowable) future? ff erentiate through biological and technological processes, but on whom we we whom on but processes, technological and biological through erentiate ff erence erence that the onto-logic of amniotics Simplyreveals a to human us. put, ff Water Water is moving, continuously proliferating years in the in shift might new water salt freshand beings, of balance new the how know forms we can How of life. state and the discrete human individual before the law, both contained within their within contained both law, the before individual human discrete the and state (knowable) present their in understood both and borders impermeable presumably virtuality, gestational and actuality their in water, of bodies However, articulation. seep through such borders and show the inability of human rights discourses to fully for account them. riverbeds? What of the right to water for industrial or livelihood purposes that result in its pollution or exploitation? How in turn does ensuring a human right to water a rightshuman jurisprudence, in implicit indeed is responsibility if even Moreover, the territoryof sovereign the by is, that present, the by bound is responsibility this these responsibilities are not altogether 2006: How clear64-65). Young can (cf. ensuring the right of a human population to water simultaneously ensure our that responsibility toward that water is addressed? What if ensuring water a means drilling increasingly or deeper plumbing right wells, increasingly shallow to poorly equipped to attend to the importance of such interpermeations. poorly attend to the importance equipped to of such interpermeations. thinking about Additionally, our mutual interdependence as companion species leads to further complications with a rights-based approach. Although rights- activists stress the notion of duties and responsibilities that are inherent in the concept of rights (e.g., Filmer-Wilson 2005; Gleick 1998: 499), in practise of all bodies of water are co-implicated. Human bodies of water exist only because only exist water of bodies Human co-implicated. are water of bodies all of animal bodies of water have gestated us. points to an imbrication of bodies that goes beyond a consideration of di interests. worthy equally but and di and other In proliferation? and sustenance gestation, own our for depend also humans non- of interests the to consideration equal granting of case a just not is this words, it would not be su human animals—which is to say, interests the that recognize must we Rather, bodies. non-human to water” to right the case with non-human bodies of water. Unfortunately, viewing access to water to viewing access Unfortunately, water. of bodies casenon-human the with as a human right is undeniable as Bodies anthropocentric. an of amniotic water, onto-logic are illustrates, far more than human but bodies, include other animal non-human address people to water to right the granting can How well. as bodies replicate humans we water the upon depend only not waterythat bodies—bodies rights paradigm is hard-pressed to accommodate the necessary interpermeation of di rightsdi be unable to listen to may paradigm di of terms in case the is this If argue that the human rights paradigm has been ruefully address unable the to question of adequately di is T erentiate. Nor is erentiate. commons ff culty of answering such questions. questions. such answering of culty ffi seems inadequate to the latent potential I of do our Again, bodies of water. In fact, In as fact, examples of Shiva (2002) ancient of details, practices communal local, are systems such in which ways the illustrate practices management and use water minority of privileged bodies. the commons” (1968), past and Even ongoing conclusion. management foregone experiencea not of is tragedy water such indeed and that shows commons other if descriptions Hardin’s of the pollution and over-extraction of what were once common resources ring true in many his respects, diagnosis of the failure of the While has the sometimes of non-ownership resources misses commons its mark. resulted in of their greater exploitation, concern should be our failure to prevent the commodification of the commons and its appropriation for the benefit of a extent possible. extent possible. Despite now Garrett infamous Hardin’s invocation of the inevitable “tragedy of localized delivery but systems, also common decision-making on the best use of geophysical bodies of water that we may not need for our personal is about about management making the decisions furthercommons proliferation use. Water of NHTs in all their forms and about di own gestate, rights—the right allowing flow, to proliferate, certain bodies of water their management a laissez-faire response; it might be better appreciated as an active form of non-ownership that lets other bodies at of least water to be, the greatest that various models and systems of commons management exist Stern (cf. et al. 2002; Hanna 1990). Hence, the notion of a water commons concerns not only the management of the water supply that comes from our wells or taps or other One alternative is the call for the recognition of water as culture or nature of a creations any to refers commons the of concept the commons. Broadly speaking, that we inherit jointly or freely of (Friends A the commons Commons 3). 2004: implies not but onlyalso common common responsibility. use of a resource, means ensuring that our inheritance is appropriately managed be so passed that it on may to future generations undiminished, while also acknowledging various bodies it seeks to address. Is there another ecopolitical approach we might might we approach ecopolitical another there Is address. to seeks it bodies various rather between all bodies of water, to that could extend look an amniotic relation than circumscribing it? to unfamiliar circumstances all indicate the di the indicate all circumstances unfamiliar to base To the strategy for the future life of our bodies of water on what we know now by inaugurated be not would gains justice important social claimthat to wish not insisting on a right of all human beings to a specified amount of water; indeed, many water-poor individuals could gain I something here. am rather suggesting that such a paradigm is limited in its both focus, temporally and in terms of the or transform? Our increasing global the population, increasing sophistication of adapt to water of bodies abilityof amazing the and technologies hydrological our to come? How can we know how the needs of watery bodies might change, grow grow wateryof change, needs might the bodies how know canwe How come? to

TOPIA 21 174 TOPIA 21 175 erentiated human, animal animal human, erentiated ff e success e of is success a in paradigm part commons water thanks T

13 Yet it seems mostly clear that advocates of a water commons reject reject commons water a of advocates that clearmostly seems it Yet interest in sustainable maintenance of a resource upon which we 14 Shiva, for example, acknowledges the concept of water as a natural right, naturalright, a as water of concept the acknowledges forexample, Shiva, human 15 those before it, a commons explicitly connects those who have, seemingly, “nothing “nothing seemingly, have, who those connects explicitly commons a it, before those as in a common” In common body. short, a unlike commons, the notion of the individual right, recognizes the gestationality of bodies of water that implicates Similarly, Shiva’s principles of water democracy, based on the notion of a commons, commons, a of notes explicitly notion the that “the on freshEarth’s based water belongs to democracy, the water earth of and all principles species.” Shiva’s Similarly, state that “all species and through ecosystems have a planet the right of to parts their all share and of beings water all on the connects “water that notes and planet” While human rights 35). law on insists (2002: the the of equality water cycle” all Moreover, although it could be argued that commons are established primarily to primarily are established it be could that commons although argued Moreover, further depend, a notion of the commons nonetheless decentres the individual human and subject, explicitly recognizes the interests of the di or vegetable other who may also rely on this Again, the water. treaty initiative right and, therefore, a collective responsibility” (Blue Planet Project 2001). From a (Blue From collective Planet responsibility” 2001). therefore, Project right and, the standpoint of a global water commons, then, rights can only be articulated in concert with a global and local responsibility that transcends both sovereign boundaries and private interests. on on usufructuary rights and grounded in “the notion of sharing and conserving a contemporaryof examples and to precursors as both (21), source” water common Global the Protect and Share to Initiative Treaty the Similarly, democracies. global water “[t]he states Rifkin, Jeremy and Barlow Maude by drafted Commons, Water fresh water supply is a shared a legacy, public trust and a fundamental human and private property-advocating aspects of this above. paradigm that were outlined connected to the right to life and the resources needed to sustain it (2002: 20- 21). She also acknowledges the significance of certain riparian systems, based In some ways, however, the commons is perhaps less an alternative to rightsto perhapsalternative is an less than commons the however, ways, some In water global the support who those of many Certainly, rights. of re-mapping a is it commons project are equally vocal in their call for the recognition of water as a right. human speciesist individualistic, the through articulated as right a as water of concept the held in trust (as opposed to having a right to that resource) implicitly acknowledges acknowledges implicitly resource) that to right a having to opposed (as trust in held to a the ways responsibility in far extends which and deeper that farther resource thus into and a than itself—out through that community water global commons, global. and local of dichotomy the collapsing (Bakker 2007; Postel 1997; Shiva 2002). As trustees of a local commons, communities communities management and commons, responsibility local community local a of primacy of the on trustees insistence its As to 2002). Shiva 1997; Postel 2007; (Bakker are best equipped to appreciate the unique qualities of water—its flowing nature, its role its in and essential cultural important dimensions spiritual the ecosystem, at the same to Yet, (Bakker time, 2007: local 442). one’s understand as resources able to thrive, in comparison to in and whose systems failures able privatized centralized comparison to thrive, continue to mount. er, er, ers ff ff (2004), (2004), Multitude erence and repetition. In a commons, attention attention commons, a In repetition. and erence is dematerialization persists, moreover, despite moreover, is dematerialization persists, ff T bodies in these political strategies? What might erence, erence, and as a counterstrategy to the globalized erentiate, to repeat and connect. and to repeat erentiate, ff ff watery owards Radical Embodiment of the Hydrocommons owards Radical ects material bodies, all the way to our DNA. Where, I wonder, are are wonder, I Where, DNA. our to way the all bodies, material ects T ff ects), ects), and forms of life itself. Significantly, Hardt and Negri claim that this onclusion: ff not only an ecopolitical alternative to a human rights paradigm, but also provides provides also but paradigm, rights human a to alternative ecopolitical an only not a key opening for broadly. embodied radicalization more of the commons but as agents and tools of o resistance, as gestational matter common” “in for water of bodies the about thinking perhapscommons to words, other In come? to mobilize the common (Hardt and Negri 2000: 204; 2004: 190, 192). Yet. at best, a new social best, body” “create is at to and Hardt according Negri, What we need to do, Yet. 192). 190, 2004: 204; 2000: Negri and (Hardt common the mobilize to this seems to be a metaphoric body and certainly a flesh-less body that already transcends our material bodies. Hardt and Negri’s astute analysis of the ways in which profoundlya the logic of enclosure material our and fleshy, enclosure, of objects as only not bodies, our acknowledged overtly more we if shift new, contemporary common needs to be actively produced by us, so that through through that so us, by produced actively contemporarybe to needs common new, an expansion of the common the possibility of global democracy can be realized. hold great untapped political and ethical potential. untapped political and ethicalhold great potential. Hardt and latest Negri’s work example, of For political theory, outlines a theory of the common which they, like claim common, is necessary activists to counter the for enclosure of not only a material goods global water and terrestrial places, but of what they a call “immaterial goods” (ideas, codes, and encouraging, and what encouraging, one finds striking in the academic and activist literature on the new which bodies material fleshy our commons, of fear somatophobia—a stunning particularlya is commons, surrounding information and knowledge 2004; Klein 2001). 2004; Despite the radical democracy that the notion of the commons seems to o there the remains, however, sense that current invocations thereof do not quite account for the reality of our bodies of water, of and interbeing the through which vast they and and flow, which complex they themselves web gestate and While these calls forinspiring a to are return the of notion commons proliferate. find commonality among di (Dyer-Witheford life of forms to ideas, to everythingspaces, fromprivatizationof 2006; Felsenstein 1993; Friends of the Commons 2004; Hardt and Negri 2000, right to flow: to gestate, to di to gestate, to flow: to right C Perhaps the time of increasingly being is the common, the or commons commons, the of notion the is theory, political upon us. In current radical democratic invoked as a new paradigm for civil society—as both a place for action that can extends extends beyond the human, and beyond the very its of but Users present. of water, are or expression not instance of an individual not owners and but custodians, them in interconnected cycles of di of cycles interconnected in them

TOPIA 21 176 TOPIA 21 177 erentiate, erentiate, ff erence and and erence ff on the one hand bodies by noting, for example, for by example, noting, is tension is at the same time T Water Wars Water orts, orts, bodies will continue to di Vandana Shiva discusses the possibility Vandana of ff e onto-logic of our bodies of water suggests is is a tension gently managed by the acequia T T ectively to meet the needs of local populations. In ff Water Wars, Water on the other, but rather we live this formulation indivisibly; we indivisibly;we formulation this live we rather but other, the on e strategies of the commons that Shiva outlines implicitly recognize implicitly outlines Shiva that commons the of strategies e water T e people of Rajasthan did not mourn the lack of rain Nature bestowed e people of Rajasthan bestowed did not mourn the lack of rain Nature T in it they it up as a challenge decided to face took and Instead them. upon fromsuch that a way the people internalized top to toe of water the nature 119-20) Shiva in 2002: (Qtd. in its simplicity fluidity. and a means of doing the onto-logic of even or amniotics. it, sell and water bottle we when sustainability of brink the beyond pushed claim (human) right. that it is ours by also a life-proliferating force is rather a necessary perched tension, at the hinge of preservation and creation. by the waterscapedirrigation roof systemsgarden in the in middleNew Mexico, of a concrete city more or, in generally, the cultivation of a water commons as to proliferate. All watery bodies are moving (flowing, melting, evaporating) at one speed or another. Hence it seems we must pursue an accommodate ecopolitics that the can seeming contradiction amniotics: at endurance the and energy, heart sustainability and perhaps of our contradiction, watery bodies can teach us proliferation. that the endurance that an is Instead of onto-logic of Like a traditional environmental ethic stresses a logic of preservation or conserva- or preservation of logic a stresses ethic environmental traditional a Like tion (cf. Evernden 1985: 4). movements of nurture, care and amniotics Yet sustenance. also reminds us that regardless of our human foibles or e this connection. She this concludesconnection. chapter six of that “the real solution to care, the time, water crisis labor, lies in energy, people’s and In solidarity” (127). other although words, our human bodies of water have potential—and the have also water of bodies human our situation, the exacerbated with our wateryresponsibility—to cultivate new relations others. that require require that in our wateriness. both physiologically and are semiotically, intimately bound up, Our bodies are the di its of gestation the to global contributing verymuch and it, on dependent commons that we seek to repetition. build—woven into it, While Mishra might be speaking in metaphors, his words embody upon the which reality his figurative language relies: the water of his commons is literally internalized—incorporated and ingested, and thereafter expelled in do we not as live sweat As bodies of water, and tears and excrement. Mishra continues: “Rajasthan’s Mishra priceless “Rajasthan’s continues: drops of water are covered with sweat.” systems of water management in India that have been able to use scarce water resources responsibly and e semi- the of strategies management water the about writes she example, such one who writes: ShivaMishra, quotes Anupam Here, arid Rajasthan. of province In chapter six of her book decentralized and local various describes She scarcity.” of out abundance “creating - - - is elision is elision is is how the how is is T T inking through the onto-logics the onto-logics inking through T ace the semiotic distinction between them. them. between the semiotic distinction ace ff whereby logic is a being’s inherent accounting for itself. for itself. accounting inherent logic is a being’s whereby is paper began with a description of the way in which water, in all of its political, political, its of all in water, which in way the of description a with began paper is logos and Tuana (2008) for thought-provoking naturalcultural accounts of water’s more disas more naturalcultural of water’s accounts for (2008) thought-provoking Tuana and onto-logics. trous expressed by such (often geophysical and meteorological) bodies of water, particularly in such (often by expressed geophysical and meteorological) bodies of water, to human relations by terms choreographed of the ways they and are both choreograph (2005) Protevi See Berland (2005), is another equally important task. bodies of water, 4. I am indebted to David Morris’s (2007) accounts of the logic of faces and animal logic of the logic of faces (2007) accounts I am indebted to David Morris’s 4. that amniotics can be understood as an onto- for suggestion my own “onto-logics” as in this sense is not a formulaic theory used “logic” Morris that is keen to stress logic. closely but rather is more notion to the Greek related after to explain something, the fact of amniotics is specifically concerned with the life-proliferating and dif shall see, As we 5. But watery bodies can also be destructive of water. and relations movements ferentiating in their velocityor catastrophic and overabundance. entirely e (2008) a substantial debt to Chandler’s My understanding of gestationality owes 3. theorization of this term. of the other-than-human species with whom we are co-implicated—that is, “organic “organic co-implicated—that is, are we with whom of the other-than-human species all make life for of whom humans what it flora, intestinal tulips, bees, beings as rice, internal the organic and vice to “the machinic and textual are where is—and vice versa,” (15). as well ways” in irreversible versa Har is indebted to Donna “natureculture” and “naturalcultural” of the terms My use 2. the term who adopts from Bruno Latour (1993) to illustrate 2004), the 2003, (e.g., away and culture. terms imagination nature Western co-implication of what our the other hand does not but on hand the inextricability one on suggests of these terms, Notes from Haraway (2003) to designate all Donna species” “companion the term I borrow 1. If we seek to counter the trends to privatize, enclose or earth’s otherwise geophysical remove the bodies of water productive that acknowledge our then active, must bodies we are bodies of fromwater, their amniotic relation with and integral other aspects of whatever commons we seek responsibility. and to potential concomitant cultivate. We bodies’ must our acknowledge also of our waterynature bodies will to matter. continue our water crises that, rather than spurring us on to the next newest life-destroying life-destroying newest next the to on us spurring than rather that, crises water our hydrological technology, would instead be in us all? inherent adequate amniotic onto-logic to the potential of the conclude now by suggesting that to operationalize the potential of the commons, commons, the of operationalize potential to the that suggesting by conclude now we need also to understand and acknowledge the ways in which the commons does not stop at Ourour skin. ecopolitical strategies must incorporate the onto- logics of is our not rather materialnor forWater than for bodies, us, deny them. of matter gestational the As function. biological mere a not water, of bodies other water also expresses our our actual being, responsibility and our virtual potential. Does then, our not, own wateriness ask that we find strategies for dealing with economic economic and cultural meaning, is not outside of us, but rather cycles through and bringing beyond us, moments of our meaningful materiality along with I it. T

TOPIA 21 178 TOPIA 21 179 - - cult - - ffi - cient water to meet their basic needs (500). Just ten (500). cient water to meet their basic needs ffi ird World concerns are marginalized concerns are and undermined in World ird T er promise for resolving water conflict across borders. However, However, borders. for across resolvingwater conflict er promise ff is view human rights has carried pre-eminent into our current over T cacy of such organizations, if water tensions dramatically escalate, remains to be remains dramatically if water tensions escalate, cacy of such organizations, ffi this masculinist legal structure and paradigm. this masculinist legal structure and paradigm. a natural right. a natural right. Article Declaration 17 of the UN Universal of Human Rights). instruments (e.g., an astute overview (1991) provide of the ways Charlesworth in which the prin et al. 12. equality of the in the context ciple of non-discrimination has never guaranteed women’s echoing so-called how law, 10. Bond (n.d.), despite his call despite his for to South a quantifiable solution right Africa’s to wa (n.d.), Bond 10. be complemented must that a rights-based himself acknowledges approach ter dilemma, of convergence increasing “an see would we whereby with an eco-socialist perspective, and class politics.” justice, racial/ethnic feminist, brown, green, whose writings the most important of contem among precursors are Locke, John 11. explicitly property of porary argued that ownership is articulations of human rights, suggesting that certain transborder organizations, such as the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Council, Circumpolar Inuit the suchas certainorganizations, that transborder suggesting Lakes the U.S. dealing with Great issues between or the International Joint Commission might o and Canada, the e seen. conflict is intimately embroiled in political conflict. Young (2006: 65) similarly (2006: dis Young is intimately in politicalconflict conflict. embroiled inven the given which is particularly puzzling, misses the likelihood of such disputes, A Shared hefty report later lays out (Water: toryYoung’s water conflicts of transborder is such situation that no country even if the current Again, chapter 11). Responsibility, of water holds out of bodies the terrestrial network lacks needs, water to meet its basic I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer of this paper for no guarantee forsuch a future. not meet its basic needs? And in the unlikelynot meet its basic needs? And could not meet its own event Canada that Gleick this dilemma be resolved? sidesteps these di conveniently would how needs, is unlikely this kind of conflict to arise” “in practice, that he adds Moreover, questions. because su have almost all nations such increasingly a statement seems dubious, afteryears the publication of this article, water-related where particularly basin, River such as the Jordan in water-strapped areas 500). Gleick concludes that “a country water is thus not permitted“a to exploit a shared Gleick concludes that 500). in a manner that deprives individuals in a neighboring countryresource their to of access deals with upstream while the 1997 Convention However, (500). basic human needs” of questions it does not address water uses for the purposes development, of economic a country would other words, In non-riparian basic needs. neighbours meeting their own if the latter could frozen to provide be obliged like Canada freshwater Arctic to the U.S. to adequate living conditions, including to electricity in relation water supply and (UN living conditions, to adequate Article 14[2][h]). arising Gleick that potential transnational conflict from suggests inability the of a 9. the UN 1997 Convention by be addressed basic water needs would state to meet its (Gleick 1998: Watercourses uses of International the Lawon of the Non-Navigational 7. Note that “water rights” are property rights, and are distinct from and are “humanright to the property are rights, “water rights” that Note 7. below. discussed water,” which the Rights of the Child, on the UN Convention are exceptions possible Two 8. includes to clean access drinkingnecessary water as a for the highest attainable provision of health (UN Article the Elimination standard on and the UN Convention 24[2][c]) rights which proclaims rural women’s Women, of Discrimination Against of All Forms 6. See Garcia (2007) and Shiva (2002: 27-28) for systems a description these acequia of See Shiva (2007) and Garcia (2002: 6. currently facing. they are threat and the - - - - - 39(3): 39(3): . PhD . Antipode . Trans. Eliot Al Trans. . . Toronto: McClel Toronto: . 85(4): 613-45. 85(4): 98:109-23. 14:93-108. Isis Dialogues II TOPIA . Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. McClelland Stewart. and Toronto: . e Canadian Heritage Rivers System Annual System Rivers e Canadian Heritage . New York: Columbia University Press. York: New . T ick with Politics. ick with Politics. T Blue Gold e Memory of Matter. e Memory of Matter. e Uphill Campaign to Privatize Canada’s Water e Uphill Campaign to Privatize Canada’s e Fate of our Most Precious Resource e Fate T T T e Actual and the Virtual. In Virtual. and the e Actual e Treaty Initiative to Share and Protect the Global Water Water Global the to Share and Protect Initiative Treaty e T e American Journal of International Law erence and Repetition T ff T Gestational Matters: Sovereignty, Ethics and the Lifeworld Sovereignty, Matters: Gestational Water: Water: e “Commons” Versus the “Commodity”: Alter-globalization, “Commodity”: Alter-globalization, the Versus “Commons” e Di T Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. and Government Services Canada. Works Minister of Public Ottawa: e Center for Public Integrity. http://www.publicintegrity.org/water/report http://www.publicintegrity.org/water/report e Center for Public Integrity. T e Canadian Heritage Rivers Board. 2000. 2000. Board. Heritagee Canadian Rivers Deleuze, Gilles. 1994. 1994. Gilles. Deleuze, 2002. Deleuze and Parnet. de Villiers, Marq. 2003. 2003. Marq. Villiers, de land and Stewart. Chandler, Mielle. 2008. 2008. Mielle. Chandler, University. York diss., Approach Feminist 1991. Christine Chinkin and ShelleyWright. Hilary, Charlesworth, es to International Law. Columbia University Press. York: New bert Ross. Carty, Bob. 2003. Hard Water: Water: Hard 2003. Bob. Carty, works. 10 October 2007. Accessed .aspx?aid=58&sid=100. Commons. http://www.blueplanetproject.net/documents/A_Plan_of_Action_01.pdf. http://www.blueplanetproject.net/documents/A_Plan_of_Action_01.pdf. Commons. 10 October 2007. Accessed WhenWater. the Human Right to Commodification Annuls N.d. Patrick. Bond, http://www2 Rights. of Human High Commission Submission Nations to the United .ohchr.org/english/issues/water/contributions/universities/UniversityofKwaZulu-Natal 10 January Accessed 2009. .pdf. T 1999-2000. Report Bijker, Wiebe E. 2007. Dikes and Dams, and Dams, Dikes 2007. Wiebe E. Bijker, 2001. Blue Planet Project. References 2007. Karen. Bakker, in the Global South. Water Anti-privatization and the Human Right to 430–55. 2002. Clarke. Tony Maude and Barlow, Walkerton: 2005. Jody. Berland, not only take decision-making power away from local communities of users, but may but may from away not only power take decision-making of users, local communities explicit rejection despite the initiative’s also open the door to public-private partnerships, trading in water. sale and for-profit of the commodification, Share and Protect the Global Water Commons, which to the global recognizes access Commons, Water Global the Share Protect and 2001). (Blue Planet Project fresh right” human “fundamental water supply as a as certain themselves into the call still inconsistencies work for clear” “mostly I say 15. still treaty initiative the Blue Planet Project’s example, For a global water commons. governments, with national locates water commons the the responsibility for protecting level is unlikely at the national and managed governed to sidestep a water commons yet More of the jurisprudentialmany in terms outlined above of human rights. problems may of the treaty initiative the guarantee in the wording of state sovereignty upheld over, 2002: 102-103) and the privatization 102-103) and the de-privatization and subsequent water services of 2002: 2006). Moist (Carty ON 2003; in Hamilton, and 2004 in 1995-1996 To Initiative Treaty Blue Planet Project See for Canadian’s the Council of example 14. 13. Notable examples of such failures include Bechtel’s ousting in Cochabamba (Shiva include of such examples failures Notable Bechtel’s 13.

TOPIA 21 180 TOPIA 21 181 e - - T - - 30(75): 30(75): Sustain Diogenes 2(2): 124-69. 2(2): . May. http://www May. . . Toronto: Univer Toronto: . , edited by B. Mc B. edited by , , 22 November. 22 November. , . Pamphlet. . 9(May-June): 81-89. 9(May-June): , 19 March. http://observer 19 March. , 162:1243-48. 23(2): 213-41. 23(2): e Dominion eory and Culture 1:487-503. . Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. Paradigm Prickly Chicago: . e Clear Choice for Canada’s Wa e Clear Choice for Canada’s Science T T Dr. Dobb’s Journal Dobb’s Dr. T e Observer . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University MA: Cambridge, . . Trans. C. Porter. Cambridge, MA: MA: Cambridge, Porter. C. Trans. . Whose Water Is It? Water Whose T New Left Review 14:155-72. . Toronto: Key Porter. Key Porter. Toronto: . Water Policy Water Empire , September-October. http://www.tni.org/ September-October. , . London: Routledge. London: . e State of 2003/04 the Commons e State e Human Rights-based Approach to Development: to Development: Approach e Human Rights-based e Circulation of the Commons. Immaterial Labour, Immaterial Labour, the Commons. of e Circulation T T T 21:83-92. e Companion Species Manifesto Species Companion e e Eighteenth Century English Commons: A Model for Ocean e Eighteenth Century English Commons: e Tragedy of the Commons. of the Commons. Tragedy e e Natural Alien: Humankind and Environment Humankind Alien: e Natural . New York: Penguin Press. Penguin York: New . e High Cost of Lousy Water. e High Cost of LousyWater. e Commons of Information. of Information. e Commons T T T T We Have Never Been Modern Never Have We T T When Run the Rivers Dry e Nethlerlands Quarterly of Rights Human e Human Right to Water. Water. e Human Right to e Haraway Reader e Haraway T Multitude T T Ocean and Shoreline Management , 12 October 2007. http://www.lasacequias.org/news/. Accessed 15 January Accessed http://www.lasacequias.org/news/. 2007. 12 October , Water International Water Canadian Dimensions Magazine Petersen, Kim. 2006. 2006. Kim. Petersen, Accessed http://www.dominionpaper.ca/original_peoples/2006/11/22/the_high_c.html. 2007. 20 November Morris, David. 2007. Faces as the Visible of the Invisible: Toward an Animal Ontology. Ontology. an Animal Toward Visible as the of the Invisible: Faces 2007. David. Morris, Journal and Phenomenological for Existential PhaenEx: Concept? Western a of Human Rights Is the Notion 1982. R. Panikkar, 75-102. 2006. Fred. Pearce, Mathiason, Nick. 2006. Coke “drinks India dry.” India dry.” “drinks Coke 2006. Nick. Mathiason, 2007. November 24 Accessed .guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1734036,00.html. not Corporations: Communities 2006. Paul. Moist, ter. 18 January Accessed 2008. detail_page.phtml?pafe=media_watercanada. ———. 2004. 2004. ———. Reclaiming the Commons. 2001. Naomi. Klein, 1993. Bruno. Latour, Harvard University Press. Haraway, Donna. 2003. 2003. Donna. Haraway, 2004. ———. 1968. Garrett. Hardin, 2000. Negri. Michael and Antonio Hardt, Press. Glennon, Robert. 2003. Bottling a Birthright? In 2003. Robert. Glennon, Society. Geographic National DC: 9-24.Washington, Jehl, and D. Donald 1990. Susan S. Hanna, Management. able Santa Fe Santa able 2008. Meeting Basic for Human Activities: Requirements Water Basic 1996. Peter. Gleick, Needs. 1998. ———. Filmer-Wilson, Emilie. 2005. 2005. Emilie. Filmer-Wilson, Water. Right to 2004. of the Commons. Friends Cultural Legacy Movements. and Grassroots Acequias: 2007. Paula. Garcia, October 2006. October 1985. Neil. Evernden, Press. Toronto sity of 1993. L. Felsenstein, 20 September Accessed 2007. .opencollector.org/history/homebrew/commons.html. Dyer-Witheford, Nick. 2006. 2006. Nick. Dyer-Witheford, Capitalism. in Cognitive Class Composition Social and the New Multititudes Subjects: 10 Accessed http://www.geocities.com/immateriallabour/withefordpaper2006.html. - - , edited , Basic Docu 4(2): 61-64. 4(2): Material Feminisms Basic Documents on Human on Human Basic Documents 17:58-60. Water as a Human Right? IUCN Right? as a Human Water e United Nations World Water Water World Nations e United . New York: W. W. Norton. W. W. York: New . T (rev. ed.). Vermont: Chelsea Green. Chelsea Vermont: ed.). (rev. , edited by Ian Brownlie, 169-81. 169-81. Brownlie, Ian edited by , On Site Environmental PracticeEnvironmental . Cambridge U.K.: IUCN and UNDP. Cambridge U.K.: . 10(1): 363-81. 10(1): . Cambridge, MA: South End Press. MA: Cambridge, . . Toronto: Between the Lines. Between Toronto: . Symposium Symposium e Right to Development as a Human Right. http://hsphsun3 http://hsphsun3 as a Human Right. e Right to Development Strangers Devour the Land the Land Devour Strangers ower Politics T , edited by Ian Brownlie, 21-27. Oxford: Oxford Oxford: UniversityPress. 21-27. Brownlie, Ian edited by , Water: A Shared Responsibility. A Shared Responsibility. Water: Water Wars Water Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity Water Facing Last Oasis: . France and New York: UNESCO/Berghahn Books. UNESCO/Berghahn York: and New France . omas Dietz and Elinor Ostrom. 2002. Research on the Commons: the Commons: on Research 2002. Dietz and Elinor Ostrom. omas Basic Documents on Human Rights on Human Basic Documents T , edited by Ian Brownlie, 182-202. Oxford: Oxford Oxford: University Press. 182-202. Brownlie, Ian edited by , Oxford: OxfordOxford: University Press. In 1997 [1989]. the Child. the Rights of on UN Convention Rights Declaration Universal of Human Rights in 1997 [1948]. United Nations. Rights ments on Human 2006. Gordon. Young, 2 Report Development Res 41/128, December 1986. Res 41/128, Women. of Discrimination Against All of Forms the Elimination on UN Convention In 1997 [1979]. of the Council of Canadians Blue Planet Project. http://www.blueplanetproject.net/ http://www.blueplanetproject.net/ Blue Planetof the Council of Canadians Project. 10 October 2007. Accessed RightToWater/documents/Submission_UN_0407.pdf. C., Paul Stern, Managers. Lessons Resource for Environmental In Witnessing Viscous Katrina. Porosity: 2008. Nancy. Tuana, Indiana University Press. IN: Bloomington, 188-213. Hekman, Alaimo and S. S. by UN General Assembly 1986. Declarationthe Right to Development. United Nations on Shrybman, Stephen. 2007. In the Matter of the United Nations Human Rights Coun Human Rights In the Matter of the United Nations 2007. Stephen. Shrybman, Prelminary Submissions Water. to Rights and the Access Human 2/104: cil Decision Rose, Owen. 2007. Roof Garden Water Systems. Systems. Water Roof Garden 2007. Owen. Rose, P 2001. Arundhati. Roy, 2004. Nemes. and Noemi Cassar Angela John, Scanlon, 51 No. and Law Paper Policy Environmental 2000. Arjun. Sengupta, 2 October 2007. Accessed .harvard.edu/fxbcenter/FXBC_WP7--Sengupta.pdf. 2002. Vandana. Shiva, Protevi, John. 2006. Katrina. Katrina. 2006. John. Protevi, 2008. Boyce. Richardson, Postel, Sandra. 1997. 1997. Sandra. Postel,

TOPIA 21 182