International Human Rights Law (IHRL) is often touted as a champion of justice. My research questions this proposition by analysing the discursive and legal implications of IHRL’s application within a greater system of international law and in context of the Israeli-Palestinian water conflict. The research analyses provisions offered under the Human Right (HR) to water in light of other relevant bodies of international law and finds that Palestinian water rights are further limited. IHRL, based on humanised needs, facilitates a legally-compliant threshold that is used by hydro-hegemons to limit rights and legitimise breaches. The call for equal water rights, envisioned through the lens of the State, thereby compromises collective water rights and results in abstract rights-balancing that distort the imbalance of occupied people. Moreover, with HR the role of agriculture in water consumption is overlooked and thus water rights are further limited. The research therefore highlights the issue of sovereignty over resources and demonstrates some problems relating to international legal fragmentation. Lastly, in order to analyse the power that underlies law, the research examines the Israeli- Palestinian negotiations process and finds that legal claims are “knocked off the table”. Thus it concludes that HR discourses and international legal structures become part of the problem rather than the solution and should be deployed with awareness of their limitations. Keywords: the human right to water; legal fragmentation, Israeli- Palestinian conflict.