Extending Marx's approach to water-justice, one would presume the questions at least the Marxists in the GJMs should be asking is: what interests do IOs and the Western States, the very actors that cause water-injustice, have in including human rights to water within a legal framework?
No doubt GJMs have played an important role in drawing attention to the human consequences of neo-liberal transformations and thereby contributed to changes in international law (Balakrishnan, R.
The nuanced critique of liberal theory on the 'Left' offers little assistance to the GJMs or indeed to the development of radical political theory in debating contemporary social questions.
GJMs usually identify three actors, the capitalists/corporations, the States and the IOs, and hold them responsible for the water deprivation and water-injustice in the Third World, which is empirically true.
'Globalisation' and the activism of the GJMs generally acknowledge that the end of the Cold War has strengthened imperialism and many describe 'globalisation' as re-colonisation.
GJMs claim to represent 'civil society', a term that is associated with liberal theory and one that 'Left' scholars have critiqued.
If 'democracy as an economic regulator' follows in the socialist traditions what should the GJMs do in order to ensure democratic decisions over water?
This is not simply a question of personal inadequacies of philosophers, political theorists and activists in that they do not practice what they preach (a complaint heard all too often from more radical activists in GJMs) but rather that what they preach is flawed at worst and inadequate at best because 'Left' philosophy and political theory are divorced from the geo-historical terrain of emancipatory politics today.