Search results

This paper aims to respond to increasing interest in the intersection between accounting and human rights and to explore whether access to information might itself constitute a human right. As human rights have “moral force”, establishing access to information as a human right may act as a catalyst for policy change. The paper also aims to focus on environmental information, and specifically the case of corporate water‐related disclosures.

This paper follows Griffin and Sen, who suggest that a candidate human right might be recognised when it is consistent with “founding” human rights, it is important and it may be influenced by societal action. The specific case for access to corporate water‐related information to constitute a human right is evaluated against these principles.

Access to corporate water‐related disclosures may indeed constitute a human right. Political participation is a founding human right, water is a critical subject of political debate, water‐related information is required in order for political participation and the state is in a position to facilitate provision of such information. Corporate water disclosures may not necessarily be in the form of annual sustainability reports, however, but may include reporting by government agencies via public databases and product labelling. A countervailing corporate right to privacy is considered and found to be relevant but not necessarily incompatible with heightened disclosure obligations.

This paper seeks to make both a theoretical and a practical contribution. Theoretically, the paper explores how reporting might be conceived from a rights‐based perspective and provides a method for determining which disclosures might constitute a human right. Practically, the paper may assist those calling for improved disclosure regulation by showing how such calls might be embedded within human rights discourse.

This chapter draws upon the ongoing gaps and injustices in Western water policy and law, exploring its paucity in recognition of Indigenous Water rights. Exacerbated by National Water legislation and ongoing colonial racism, notions of ‘ownership’ of water resources that are licenced through the Crown represent a site where a paradigm shift is needed to dismiss the myth of aqua nullius and secure Aboriginal Water rights (Marshall, 2017). The Gunditjmara success in obtaining United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage listing of the Budj Bim eel traps and the Yarra River (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Protection Act (2017) are two examples that illustrate recognition of Aboriginal connections to water, but at the same time reveal weaknesses in Australian water policy. Sustainable Indigenous culture requires legal, social and cultural recognition and enactment of Aboriginal Water rights.

In 1950, the Aluminum Company of Canada (Alcan) was given a perpetual water license for a large section of Northern British Columbia, Canada. The benefit to the original owner of the water rights, the Province of British Columbia, was economic and population growth. The purpose of this paper is to follow the contestation over these rights from 1948 to 2016.

An institutional logics perspective was taken to analyze the main actors and how their relative power (dominant versus fringe) changed in the institutional field. Archival data and selected interviews were mapped to institutional logics across three time periods.

In the inter-temporal setting, many of the actors that were fringe in 1950 became more dominant by 2016. For example, the local indigenous peoples, the Cheslatta Carrier First Nation, were flooded off their land to make way for Alcan’s dam. They ended up as very powerful players in the institutional field. The perpetual rights given to Alcan made it a dominant actor across all time periods, despite changes in the logics of the institutional field.

A single case was studied; other comparative settings should be explored to contrast and compare. The data were primarily archival, supplemented by only three interviews of those related to the case study. This case study is also one where water rights were privatized in perpetuity, which may not be the case in other settings.

Current governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should use this case to understand the long-term effects of resource policy decisions.

The building of large dams has been, and continues to be, used worldwide to provide power to create economic growth. Our setting provides insight into the long-term societal outcomes of using water rights in this way.

This is an original use of institutional logics around a natural resource-based institutional field. Using institutional logics in a multi-period setting, focusing on the power relations of the key actors, and how they can be constrained by historical forces, provides a contribution to the literature.

The purpose of this paper is to link debates around the international law on human rights and disaster management with the evolving debate around the human right to sanitation, in order to explore the extent to which states are obliged to account for sanitation in their disaster management efforts.

The paper is based on analysis of existing laws and policy relating to human rights, sanitation and disaster management. It further draws upon relevant academic literature.

The paper concludes that, while limitations exist, states have legal obligations to provide sanitation to persons affected by a disaster. It is further argued that a human rights-based approach to sanitation, if respected, can assist in strengthening disaster management efforts, while focusing on the persons who need it the most.

The analysis in this paper focuses on the obligations of states for people on their territory. Due to space limitations, it does not examine the complex issues relating to enforcement mechanisms available to disaster victims.

This is the first scholarly work directly linking the debates around international human rights law and disaster management, with human rights obligations in relation to sanitation. The clarification of obligation in relation to sanitation can assist in advocacy and planning, as well as in ensuring accountability and responsibility for human rights breaches in the disaster context.

This paper aims to explore the possible uses of economic instruments, other than water tariffs, to assist water management policy in Brazil. In particular, the paper focuses attention toward markets for use rights.

The research is based on water resources specialists’ opinions and perceptions, collected through surveys (Delphi method) and a focus group, to understand if such an instrument is desirable and which roles could it play within Brazilian water basins.

Results suggest there is room and utility for markets for water use rights, although mostly on a temporary basis, localized, predominantly dealing with scarcity events and in conjunction with the other instruments under Brazil’s National Water Policy.

Given the persistence of scarcity events in the country, the research represents a first step to understand if new instruments for water management are politically feasible and contribute to better delineate future investigations applied to specific water basins and their local conditions.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and critically review the new tenure arrangements that have been established to recognise Māori relationship with land (Te Urewera) and river (Whanganui River), to ascribe them their own legal personality.

The paper describes the development of the legal arrangements in Aotearoa, New Zealand, for Treaty settlements with Māori, and documents the various forms of rights and divisions of space that are changing the face of property institutions.

The paper finds that the acknowledgement of land and nature as having their own legal status and, therefore, owned by themselves is bold and innovative, but is still not a full recognition of customary tenure. The recognition of rivers as indivisible entities is stated but not clearly implemented.

Māori interests and authority are now more clearly articulated, and Māori may expect to be able to engage in customary practices and restore their traditional relationships with their land more explicitly.

The avoidance of an ownership regime has tempered public concerns about issues such as ownership of flowing water. The formalities are still being completed in the case of the Whanganui River, so the full implications are yet to be felt.

This is an innovative development in tenure arrangements seen by some as providing for the rights of nature, but actually responding to the rights of the Indigenous people. This article may inform others about possible models for more diverse tenure arrangements elsewhere.

Argues that the serious environmental degradation occurring in two “low island” Pacific states, Kiribati and Tuvalu, can be directly attributed to the lack of allocation of rights of access to, or the lack of exclusion of non rights‐holders from, common property resources. A recommendation, resulting from research in the countries concerned, is that the governments must enforce their rights over lands and underground water, if these resources are to continue to provide benefits to the community and if disease incidence in the population (an outcome of open access to public resources) is to be reduced. For the management of inshore fisheries resources, it is suggested that rights of Island Councils are confirmed and reinforced by central government. In the case of the nations’ ocean resources, co‐operation between Pacific island states is required to manage access and exploitation by foreign vessels.

Although more than 71 per cent of the Earth is covered by water, 97 per cent of that volume is saltwater held in the oceans. Of the remaining water, 2 per cent is freshwater locked away in snow and ice, leaving less than 1 per cent available for human requirements (Williams, 2016). Yet, water is crucial for human survival. Therefore, access to water must be recognised as a fundamental human right. In 2010, the United Nations adopted Resolution 64/292 which explicitly recognises the human right to water and sanitation, acknowledges that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential for the realisation of all human rights, and seeks to protect water as a national resource and the people that need it the most. Despite the adoption of the aforementioned Resolution, water remains a hugely pertinent issue across the world, particularly in areas where water is considered predominantly as a tradeable commodity. Hence, Water and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the 2015 UN-Water Annual International Zaragoza Conference are extremely important in terms of water protection, preservation and sustainable development. This chapter discusses access to water as a fundamental precondition of life, noting that the Republic of Slovenia became one of the first countries in the world to include the human right to water in its Constitution in 2017. The authors believe that this is an excellent example for other countries to change their legislation in favour of protecting the fundamental human right to access to water. It also presents further possibilities for achieving SDG 6.1 (and other SDGs related to water) in practice.

This paper aims to show how property rights predominantly shape discussions about the governance of natural resources and thereby neglect questions of (collective) identities and alternative solutions to govern natural resources. The purpose is to introduce narratives as an alternative approach to the discussion about the governance of natural resources.

Guided by the question of how we acquire property and what that tells us about our understanding of to whom natural resources belong to, the paper reviews the history of property rights by looking into property theories starting from Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. It then takes a closer look at The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study and the Nagoya Protocol with regard to property rights. Second, the paper introduces the concept of narratives surrounding property rights in the past and present.

Property rights are a social concept dominant in the industrialised world. This has strong implications when looking at the way indigenous people look at natural resources. Mostly, property rights are unknown to them or alternative concepts exist. Yet, documents such as the Nagoya Protocol or the TEEB study presuppose an understanding of property rights originating in European property concepts. A narrative approach to property rights introduces new ideas and looks beyond legislation and policies at the stories people tell about property and natural resources, at property stereotypes and identities and what this might entail for future natural resource governance.

The paper fulfils a need to find alternative approaches to govern natural resources against the background of global environmental challenges.