Bibliographic record
Abstract
International rights to water have a seductive appeal. Water is essential to life. An estimated billion people do not have access to an adequate supply. Therefore, the argument goes, a right to water should be enshrined in international law to enable them to get the water they need.The argument is simplistic and wrong. Water rights do not address the causes of global water problems — pollution, depletion, monopoly, corruption, conflict of interest, mismanagement, and lack of financing — and could even exacerbate them. Like international law itself, the meaning of water rights is inherently nebulous and subject to manipulation. International water rights could be given at least three different interpretations, all of them detrimental to the project of protecting water resources and maximizing access. First, a right to water could mean that governments must provide water to their citizens for free or at nominal cost, which would be counterproductive to supply. Where water is scarce, subsidizing its price exacerbates the scarcity. Second, water could come to be regarded as a common global resource, giving credence to calls for international transfers. The tragedy of the commons would beckon, imperiling the long-term viability of the resource. Third, international water rights could mean nothing at all in binding legal terms. Good water governance requires good governance, broadly conceived. International water rights do not achieve this objective, and are likely to threaten the enterprise of protecting and providing access to water resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".