Relevance and Rationale
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Norm Diffusion and Norm Entrepreneurs
2.2. Opportunity Structure
3. Methods and Data
4. Transnational Norm Entrepreneurs and the Development of the Human Right to Water and Sanitation
4.1. The International Norm Development
4.2. Central Actors at the International Level
The use of the word “including” indicates that this catalogue of rights was not intended to be exhaustive. The right to water clearly falls within the category of guarantees essential for securing an adequate standard of living, particularly since it is one of the most fundamental conditions for survival.
5.1. Key Actors
5.2. Political Opportunity Structures
5.3. Normative Opportunity Structures
… expected that the new Constitution would take into account the needs and aspirations of the disadvantaged and marginalised members of society. In many respects, they expected the new Constitution to solve a myriad of socio-economic problems and create a drastic improvement in their livelihood, especially alleviate poverty, eradicate corruption, create employment opportunities, and provide adequate food, shelter, health, education, water, and land for every Kenyan (sic).
The international community has long realized that for our inherent dignity and right to life to be respected, the material conditions of our lives must be such that it is possible. […] That is recognized from long ago in 1948 by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which deals very explicitly with the conditions of life, deals very explicitly with the need for matters such as inadequate standards of living including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and social services […].In South Africa, what we did was we followed the structure of the international covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights. We said we would have a general statement of the rights followed by the description of the duties. You have got [… a] copy of our bill of rights, and [if] you turn later to Section 26 of that, you will see the housing right, which explains how we have tried to deal with it. Let me turn to that. Section 26 I of our bill of rights of our Constitution contains a general statement of the right. Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing; it is a fundamental right, which everyone has to have access to […], and it is the general statement of the right.
… use of community-based social, religious, and civic/ political organisations, individuals, and networks in Kenyan society as channels and influencers to communicate with people “face-to-face”. Examples would be speaking through women’s groups, barazas, and church groups, etc. A radio entertainment-educational serial drama linked to community level activities is also recommended as a central activity for this phase.
6.1. Key Actors
6.2. Political and Socio-Economic Opportunity Structures
6.3. Normative Opportunity Structures
Our main goal was to be clearly written into the Constitution that water and water land is a natural public good, over which no-one can acquire ownership rights; that everyone has the right to drinking water; that the water supply of the population cannot be owned by private companies in any legal-formal way, and that the provision of the water supply to the public is a service which should not generate profit and that the water supply of the population has the absolute precedence over economic exploitation in the case of the water crisis or drought or other crises, and that the water resources be managed sustainably, with thoughts on our posterity.
7.1. Political Structures and Contexts
7.2. Framing of the Right to Water
7.3. Links to International Actors and Discourses
There were no special contacts between our civic initiative and other NGOs across Europe, nor did we follow the example of some other countries that constitutionalised the right to water.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
|Type of document||Constitution (drafts and old constitution included)|
|Present actors or author of document||State actors||Review Committee|
|Special and topical committees|
|Politicians and parliamentarians|
|NGOs and CSOs||NGOs or civil society organisations|
|The People||Private persons, the people|
|Representatives of groups in society|
|Professionals||Scholars, academics, professionals|
|Water and sanitation—categories||Right / human right|
|Minorities, marginalised groups (women, children, pastoralists, informal settlers)|
|Persons held in custody|
|Responsibility for provision|
|Natural resources and environment|
|Inequality (geographical, social, in access)|
|NGOs or civil society actors||Names of the NGOs and civil society actors|
- Loen, M. Constitutionalising Rights to Water and Sanitation: International Norm Diffusion or Local Politics? Master’s Thesis, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, 3 July 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Sunstein, C.R. Social Norms and Social Roles. Columbia Law Rev. 1996, 96, 903–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finnemore, M.; Sikkink, K. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. Int. Organ. 1998, 52, 887–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gloppen, S. Conceptualizing Lawfare: A Typology & Theoretical Framework. Working Paper; Centre for Law and Social Transformation, CMI and University of Bergen: Bergen, Norway, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Tortajada, C.; Islam, S. Governance in urban water quality and water disasters: A focus on Asia. Water Int. 2011, 36, 764–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pahl-Wostl, C.; Gorris, P.; Jager, N.; Koch, L.; Lebel, L.; Stein, C.; Venghaus, S.; Withanachchi, S. Scale-related governance challenges in the water–energy–food nexus: Toward a diagnostic approach. Sustain. Sci. 2021, 16, 615–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kayser, G.L.; Amjad, U.; Dalcanale, F.; Bartram, J.; Bentley, M.E. Drinking water quality governance: A comparative case study of Brazil, Ecuador, and Malawi. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 48, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Gisselquist, R.M. Paired Comparison and Theory Development: Considerations for Case Selection. PS Political Sci. Politics 2014, 47, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gupta, J.; Pahl-Wostl, C. Global Water Governance in the Context of Global and Multilevel Governance: Its Need, Form, and Challenges. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Goodman, R.; Jinks, D. How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law. Duke Law J. 2004, 54, 621–703. [Google Scholar]
- Checkel, J.T. Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change. Int. Organ. 2001, 55, 553–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitschelt, H.P. Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies. Br. J. Political Sci. 1986, 16, 57–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, E.A. Out of the Closets and into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Giugni, M.; Koopmans, R.; Passy, F.; Statham, P. Institutional and Discursive Opportunities for Extreme-Right Mobilization in Five Countries. Mobilization 2005, 10, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Checkel, J.T. Norms, Institutions, and National Identity in Contemporary Europe. Int. Stud. Q. 1999, 43, 83–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katiba Institute. Katiba Digital Resource Database. Available online: http://www.katibainstitute.org/Archives/ (accessed on 18 November 2019).
- Državni Zbor. Kronologija VI. Mandata. Available online: https://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/is/kronologija/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8zinfyCTD293Q0N3L2cTAwCjf19nYLMgwyDPQz0w8EKvCy9Hb3ACoyCTA0CXYycfIMNjA2CjQz0o4jRb4ADOBKpH4-CKPzGF-SGhoY6KioCAIQMZuY!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/ (accessed on 11 October 2021).
- Bennett, A.; Checkel, J. Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytical Tool; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kuehn, D. Combining Game Theory Models and Process Tracing: Potentials and Limits. Eur. Political Sci. 2013, 13, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnett, M.N.; Finnemore, M. The Politics, Power and Pathologies of International Organizations. Int. Organ. 1999, 53, 699–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Collier, D. Understanding Process Tracing. PS Political Sci. Politics 2011, 44, 823–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Mahoney, J. Process Tracing and Historical Explanation. Secur. Stud. 2015, 24, 200–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Report of the United Nations Water Conference. In Proceedings of the UN Water Conference, Mar del Plata, Argentina, 14–25 March 1977; United Nations Publication: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- UN General Assembly. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Treaty Series; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1966; Volume 993, p. 3. [Google Scholar]
- UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant); UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations General Assembly. International Decade for Action, “Water for Life”, 2005–2015; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations General Assembly. International Decade for Action, “Water for Sustainable Development”; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- UN General Assembly. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Treaty Series; A/RES/34/180; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1979; Volume 1249, p. 13. [Google Scholar]
- UN General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of the Child; A/RES/44/25; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1989; Volume 1577, p. 3. [Google Scholar]
- UN General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; A/RES/61/106; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- UN General Assembly. The Human Right to Water and Sanitation; Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 28 July 2010 64/292; A/RES/64/292; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Baer, M. The human right to water and sanitation: Champions and challengers in the fight for new rights acceptance. In Expanding Human Rights: 21st Century Norms and Governance; Brysk, A., Stohl, M., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2017; pp. 94–114. [Google Scholar]
- Human Rights Council. Human Rights and Access to Water; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- OHCHR. OHCHR Study on Human Rights Obligations Related to Equitable Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation. Available online: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/WaterAndSanitation/StudyWater/Pages/OHCHRStudyWaterIndex.aspx (accessed on 22 June 2020).
- Human Rights Council. Human Rights and Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Winkler, I. The Human Right to Sanitation. Univ. Pa. J. Int. Law 2016, 37, 1331–1406. [Google Scholar]
- Winkler, I. The Human Right to Water: Significance, Legal Status and Implications for Water Allocation; Hart Publishing: Oxford, UK; Portland, OR, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Personal Communication, 3 March 2020.
- Mubangizi, J.C. The Constitutional Protection of Socio-Economic Rights in Selected African Countries: A Comparative Evaluation. Afr. J. Leg. Stud. 2006, 2, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Appel, H.; Orenstein, M.A. Why did Neoliberalism Triumph and Endure in the Post-Communist World? Comp. Politics 2016, 48, 313–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mati, J.M. Social Movements and Socio-Political Change in Africa: The Ufungamano Initiative and Kenyan Constitutional Reform Struggles (1999–2005). Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2012, 23, 63–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cottrell, J.; Ghai, Y. Constitution Making and Democratization in Kenya (2000–2005). Democratization 2007, 14, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, S. Authoritarian leaders and multiparty elections in Africa: How foreign donors help to keep Kenya’s Daniel arap Moi in power. Third World Q. 2001, 22, 725–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kindiki, K. The Emerging Jurisprudence on Kenya’s Constitutional Review Law. Kenya Law Rev. 2007, 1, 153–187. [Google Scholar]
- Chitere, P.; Chweya, L.; Masya, J.; Tostensen, A.; Waiganjo, K. Kenya Constitutional Documents: A Comparative Analysis; Chr. Michelsen Institute: Bergen, Norway, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Katua, M.K.; Khalfan, A.; Langform, M.; Lüke, M. Kenyan-German Development Cooperation in the Water Sector: Assessment from a Human Rights Perspective; GTZ: Eschborn, Germany, 2007; pp. 1–51. [Google Scholar]
- Kameri-Mbote, P.; Kariuki, F. Human Rights, Gender and Water in Kenya. In Water is Life: Women’s Human Rights in National and Local Water Governance in Southern and Eastern Africa; Hellum, A., Ed.; Weaver Press: Harare, Zimbabwe, 2015; pp. 81–117. [Google Scholar]
- Kayser, F.; Osterhaus, J. The Human Rights-Based Approach in German Development Cooperation; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH: Bonn/Eschborn, Germany, 2014; p. 5. [Google Scholar]
- GTZ. Communication Strategy for the Water Sector Reforms Programme; GTZ Office, Water and Sanitation Programme Africa (WSP-AF), Ministry of Water Resources Management and Development: Nairobi, Kenya, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Comparative Constitution Project. Constitute Project. Available online: https://www.constituteproject.org/search?lang=en (accessed on 28 July 2020).
- Eman, K.; Mesko, G. Access to Safe and Affordable Drinking Water as a Fundamental Human Right: The Case of the Republic of Slovenia. In The Emerald Handbook of Crime, Justice and Sustainable Development; Blaustein, J., Fitz-Gibbon, K., Pino, N.W., White, R., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2020; pp. 465–484. [Google Scholar]
- Državni Zbor. Javna Predstavitev Mnenj-Izbrani Zapis Seje. Available online: https://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/seje/evidenca/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8zivSy9Hb283Q0N3E3dLQwCQ7z9g7w8nAwsPE31w9EUGAWZGgS6GDn5BhsYGwQHG-lHEaPfAAdwNCBOPx4FUfiNL8gNDQ11VFQEAF8pdGQ!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?mandat=VI&type=pmagdt&uid=279AF50EDE93ABE4C1257D090035004F (accessed on 12 October 2021).
- Personal Communication, 10 August 2021.
- Personal Communication, 27 September 2021.
- Bebler, A. The Republic of Slovenia-Internal Politics and International Relations. Perspectives 1994, 4, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
- Daskalovski, Z. Democratisation in Macedonia and Slovenia. SEER J. Labour Soc. Aff. East. Eur. 1999, 2, 17–44. [Google Scholar]
- Lindstrom, N.; Piroska, D. The Politics of Privatization and Europeanization in Europe’s Periphery: Slovenian Banks and Breweries for Sale? Compet. Chang. 2007, 11, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ramet, S.P. Slovenia’s Road to Democracy. Eur.-Asia Stud. 1993, 45, 869–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Državni Zbor. Javna Predstavitev Mnenj-Izbrani Dokument. Available online: https://imss.dz-rs.si/IMiS/ImisAdmin.nsf/ImisnetAgent?OpenAgent&2&DZ-MSS-01/95f775b30aa8f4a3e3a3d054bd9b85041819a51a39e2c0832a520f2f9481dcad (accessed on 12 October 2021).
- Državni Zbor. Predsednik Državnega Zbora Sprejel Predstavnike Civilne Iniciative za Slovenijo in Svobodo. Available online: https://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/is/sporocilaZaJavnost/sporociloZaJavnost/6f270042-7e05-4daa-85af-f091efa3f472/!ut/p/z1/jZBPC4JAFMQ_0fLePl1Xj1pg_gUVyfYSC7kmlEpIhz591j1zbgO_mYEBBQ2oQT_7Ts_9OOjb4k_KOQd5KaIk5OiWkmNhRbmTHjgnF-H4BWIv8eMPEFIpsNhTkFVoYUUIaksef8jfmF8B1Hp9_G9geYAe2S7rQE16vrJ-MCM0jiGJaBOTLQpmX7RmrtCGGfR4a7RlbEkw3eu6eaX-GxV63ys!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/ (accessed on 12 October 2021).
- Eržen, B. Zapis Pravice do Vode v Ustavo Obsojen na Propad. Available online: https://www.zurnal24.si/slovenija/zapis-pravice-do-vode-v-ustavo-obsojen-na-propad-248624 (accessed on 11 October 2021).
- Hribar, M.Š.; Kozina, J.; Bole, D.; Urbanc, M. Public Goods, Common-Pool Resources, and the Commons: The Influence of Historical Legacy on Modern Perceptions in Slovenia as a Transitional Society. Urban. Inštitut. Repub. Slov. 2018, 29, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; 70/1; Agenda items 15 and 116; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
|Factors||Kenya||Slovenia||Similarities and Differences|
|Time of constitutionalisation process||2002–2010||2013–2016||Similar time period, proximity to international norm development.|
|Scope of the right compared to international norm (which includes sanitation)||“Every person has the right (…) to reasonable standards of sanitation; (…) to clean and safe water in adequate quantities”||“(R)ight to water for household use” indirectly including the right to sanitation||Similar in scope although sanitation is implicit in Slovenia. Both reflect scope of international right but with differences in wording.|
|Material context: water governance challenges||High levels of water scarcity, low government capacity||Increased prices due to privatisation, deteriorating water quality, high government capacity||Differ in water governance concerns and capacity. Water and sanitation challenges are larger in Kenya, while State capacity to address them is lower.|
|Geographical context||Regional influences from Africa, particularly South Africa||Regional influences from EU and Europe||Different regional context. Slovenia’s integration in the EU provides a more comprehensive water governance framework.|
|Normative context: broader rights discourse||Socio-economic rights; right to life with dignity; health; food; housing; social security; education||Anti-privatisation, environmental rights; right to natural resources; sustainability||Differ in normative context: in Kenya, socio-economic right discourse is strong; in Slovenia, anti-privatisation, public ownership, and environmental rights are dominant.|
|Scope of constitutionalisation process||Part of new constitution||Constitutional amendment||Differ in attention to issue.|
Presumably more focus on water in Slovenia, where it was the sole focus of an amendment, than in Kenya, where the whole constitution was on the table.
|Platform for decision-making/mobilisation||Constitutional review committee (and referendum)||Parliament||Differ in decision-making structure, with the process in Kenya presumably more open to bottom-up mobilisation compared to Slovenia with a parliamentary process.|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).