Content
About this brief
Clean Water and Sanitation- Zero Hunger
- For policymakers
- Brief created: 2024
- Sign up
Right to food and right to water: are they the same challenge?
Brief about:
Chapter in an Edited Book (2019)
Written by:
.jpg)
This chapter examines the parallels between the Right to Food and the Right to Water within the context of international human rights, trade, and investment law, arguing that both rights face similar challenges due to the fragmentation between human rights provisions and economic laws.
The research shows the disconnect between international human rights obligations and economic laws, particularly in trade and investment, and how this gap undermines the Right to Food. Even though international treaties like the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognize the Right to Food – and in a different way, the Right to Water – current frameworks like the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and investment treaties fail to offer adequate protection. Farm support in rich countries (including not just the CAP but in richer developing countries as well, often coming in the disguise of “food security”) is a main example of ICESCR/Right to Food violation.
These frameworks allow harmful practices, such as food dumping, export restrictions and large-scale land acquisitions (land grabs), which distort markets, violate basic human rights and limit access to essential resources. Aligning trade and investment laws with human rights principles emerges as a crucial step toward safeguarding food security and ensuring fair access to resources and markets.
Key findings
- International economic law is fragmented from human rights law, limiting implementation and enforcement of the Right to Food.Evidence
The WTO Agreement on Agriculture aims to create a market-oriented system without trade distortions, but it does not regulate practices with a negative food security impact like export restrictions and certain types of international food aid. WTO/AoA subsidy rules thus distort markets and create unequal access. Developing countries struggle to secure food imports during crises, while wealthier countries reduce tariffs and maintain food supplies. Investment treaties and contracts also (i) protect harmful practices like large-scale land acquisitions (land grabs) that displace communities, especially women, and restrict access to food resources and (ii) “freeze” environmentally and socially unsustainable FDI.
What it meansMy notes address the governance failures at the international level, leaving aside national food security policies dealing with R2F rights and obligations.
- The Right to Food, though enshrined in Public International Law, is not adequately protected under current trade rules.Evidence
Article 11 of the ICESCR affirms the Right to Food, but WTO rules allow wealthy nations to support and protect their farmers and dominate food markets, leaving poor developing countries vulnerable, particularly in times of crisis. Rich countries can regulate food imports and exports, while poorer nations face restrictions and shortages without adequate safeguards, penalising their (often female) vulnerable consumers and producers.
What it meansCurrent trade practices in many richer countries violate Customary Law principles like “do no harm” at various points along the international food value chain.
- Bilateral investment treaties and investment chapters in Regional Trade Agreements fail to protect human rights and vulnerable people, allowing harmful land use practices that undermine the Right to Food.Evidence
Investment treaties often protect investment contracts allowing foreign investors to engage in large-scale land acquisitions that displace local populations and restrict their access to food, without requiring adherence to human rights norms. There are no international investment rules within the WTO to prevent such abuses, which harm vulnerable communities.
- WTO (+ ICSID) Non-Discrimination Rules allow for food dumping, also disregarding multilateral social and environmental and climate law.Evidence
Trade and Investment Dispute Settlement rulings NEVER gave preference to non-trade concerns and measures over non-discrimination rules, thus violating in more than one case VCLT-enshrined commitments, including under SDG 2 (“End Hunger”).
What it meansWater is a multifaceted and multidisciplinary component of the Right to Food. Women bear an especially heavy burden here too. Some of my other publications address this food security and agrifood trade challenge under a national and international legal framework.
- Distributive justice, central to religious and historical legal frameworks, is largely absent in modern economic law governing food.Evidence
Religious teachings in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam emphasize almsgiving and charity as obligations tied to distributive justice. Early constitutions recognized social rights such as access to food. However, modern trade and investment laws are primarily focused on better: level-playing field/non-discrimination, not ensuring equitable distribution of resources.
What it meansThe failure of international economic law to incorporate principles of distributive justice leads to inequities in access to food, highlighting the need for reforms that align these laws with moral and human rights principles.
Proposed action
- Allow developing countries policy space to protect vulnerable agricultural sectors.
- Reform investment treaties and their role in investment contracts to avoid overprotection and under-regulation of FDI.
- Align investment policies of international financial institutions with food and water security objectives.
Comments
You must log in to ask a question
Are you a researcher looking to make a real-world impact? Join Acume and transform your research into a practical summary.
Already have an account? Log in
Discover more
Right to food and right to water: are they the same challenge?
Cite this brief: Häberli, Christian. 'Right to food and right to water: are they the same challenge?'. Acume. https://www.acume.org/r/right-to-food-and-right-to-water-are-they-the-same-challenge/
Brief created by: Dr Christian Häberli | Year brief made: 2024
Original research:
- Häberli, C., Right to food and right to water: are they the same challenge? In Blue Ethics: Ethical Perspectives, (pp. 45–50) https://doi.org/10.1086/699906. – https://repository.globethics.net/bitstream/handle/20.500.12424/667727/GE_Praxis_13_Blue_Ethics.pdf
Research brief:
This chapter examines the parallels between the Right to Food and the Right to Water within the context of international human rights, trade, and investment law, arguing that both rights face similar challenges due to the fragmentation between human rights provisions and economic laws.
The research shows the disconnect between international human rights obligations and economic laws, particularly in trade and investment, and how this gap undermines the Right to Food. Even though international treaties like the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognize the Right to Food – and in a different way, the Right to Water – current frameworks like the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and investment treaties fail to offer adequate protection. Farm support in rich countries (including not just the CAP but in richer developing countries as well, often coming in the disguise of “food security”) is a main example of ICESCR/Right to Food violation.
These frameworks allow harmful practices, such as food dumping, export restrictions and large-scale land acquisitions (land grabs), which distort markets, violate basic human rights and limit access to essential resources. Aligning trade and investment laws with human rights principles emerges as a crucial step toward safeguarding food security and ensuring fair access to resources and markets.
Findings:
International economic law is fragmented from human rights law, limiting implementation and enforcement of the Right to Food.
The WTO Agreement on Agriculture aims to create a market-oriented system without trade distortions, but it does not regulate practices with a negative food security impact like export restrictions and certain types of international food aid. WTO/AoA subsidy rules thus distort markets and create unequal access. Developing countries struggle to secure food imports during crises, while wealthier countries reduce tariffs and maintain food supplies. Investment treaties and contracts also (i) protect harmful practices like large-scale land acquisitions (land grabs) that displace communities, especially women, and restrict access to food resources and (ii) “freeze” environmentally and socially unsustainable FDI.
My notes address the governance failures at the international level, leaving aside national food security policies dealing with R2F rights and obligations.
The Right to Food, though enshrined in Public International Law, is not adequately protected under current trade rules.
Article 11 of the ICESCR affirms the Right to Food, but WTO rules allow wealthy nations to support and protect their farmers and dominate food markets, leaving poor developing countries vulnerable, particularly in times of crisis. Rich countries can regulate food imports and exports, while poorer nations face restrictions and shortages without adequate safeguards, penalising their (often female) vulnerable consumers and producers.
Current trade practices in many richer countries violate Customary Law principles like “do no harm” at various points along the international food value chain.
Bilateral investment treaties and investment chapters in Regional Trade Agreements fail to protect human rights and vulnerable people, allowing harmful land use practices that undermine the Right to Food.
Investment treaties often protect investment contracts allowing foreign investors to engage in large-scale land acquisitions that displace local populations and restrict their access to food, without requiring adherence to human rights norms. There are no international investment rules within the WTO to prevent such abuses, which harm vulnerable communities.
WTO (+ ICSID) Non-Discrimination Rules allow for food dumping, also disregarding multilateral social and environmental and climate law.
Trade and Investment Dispute Settlement rulings NEVER gave preference to non-trade concerns and measures over non-discrimination rules, thus violating in more than one case VCLT-enshrined commitments, including under SDG 2 (“End Hunger”).
Water is a multifaceted and multidisciplinary component of the Right to Food. Women bear an especially heavy burden here too. Some of my other publications address this food security and agrifood trade challenge under a national and international legal framework.
Distributive justice, central to religious and historical legal frameworks, is largely absent in modern economic law governing food.
Religious teachings in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam emphasize almsgiving and charity as obligations tied to distributive justice. Early constitutions recognized social rights such as access to food. However, modern trade and investment laws are primarily focused on better: level-playing field/non-discrimination, not ensuring equitable distribution of resources.
The failure of international economic law to incorporate principles of distributive justice leads to inequities in access to food, highlighting the need for reforms that align these laws with moral and human rights principles.
Advice:
Allow developing countries policy space to protect vulnerable agricultural sectors.
Reform investment treaties and their role in investment contracts to avoid overprotection and under-regulation of FDI.
Align investment policies of international financial institutions with food and water security objectives.