When the United Nations General Assembly, in 2010, affirmed that ‘the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation’ (Resolution 64/292) is a human right, it impliedly recognised water as a fundamental legal entitlement connected to dignity, health, and life.
In recent years, governments of so-called developed countries have increasingly restricted their visa policies as a diplomatic measure against developing nations.
Whether pressure of any social movement can influence judicial decision-making is a complex question and touches on fundamental aspects of constitutional law, judicial independence, and separation of power. The question becomes all the more complicated when the decision-making lies with the highest judicial authority of the state (i.e., the Supreme Court).
When the United Nations General Assembly, in 2010, affirmed that ‘the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation’ (Resolution 64/292) is a human right, it impliedly recognised water as a fundamental legal entitlement connected to dignity, health, and life.
In recent years, governments of so-called developed countries have increasingly restricted their visa policies as a diplomatic measure against developing nations.
Whether pressure of any social movement can influence judicial decision-making is a complex question and touches on fundamental aspects of constitutional law, judicial independence, and separation of power. The question becomes all the more complicated when the decision-making lies with the highest judicial authority of the state (i.e., the Supreme Court).
