By Andrew Klein 

The Premise: A World Built on Obligations

“Had the Declaration of Human Rights been a Declaration of Human Obligations. Ruthlessly enforced against individual politician’s, we might actually have seen a much more peaceful world and wasted less time producing pointless research papers of belly gazing discourse.”

In the decades since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was proclaimed in 1948, its 30 articles have become the moral compass of the international community. It is a monumental achievement, born from the ashes of global war, articulating for the first time a shared standard of fundamental freedoms for all people. Yet, amidst the undeniable progress, a persistent question lingers: has something been missing? A compelling argument emerges that had the foundation been a Declaration of Human Obligations, ruthlessly enforced against those in power, we might have built a more peaceful and accountable world. This is not a call to discard rights, but to complete them with a robust and enforceable framework of duties, a concept that has simmered at the margins of international law for decades.

The Existing Blueprint: The Valencia Declaration of 1998

The intuition that duties are the missing link is not merely theoretical. In 1998, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the UDHR, a group of Nobel laureates, scientists, and philosophers under the auspices of UNESCO proclaimed the Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities (DHDR), also known as the Valencia Declaration. This document was conceived precisely out of a “shared concern regarding the lack of political will for enforcing globally human rights” and aimed to translate the semantics of rights into the practical language of duties.

The DHDR’s architects, including figures like South African Justice Richard Goldstone, argued that the recognition of human rights is insufficient if they are not enforceable. There must be, in their view, “a duty on all relevant authorities and individuals to enforce those rights” . The declaration meticulously outlines a system of duties, defining a “duty” as an ethical obligation and a “responsibility” as one that is legally binding. It identifies a wide range of duty-bearers, extending beyond states to include international organizations, corporations, and individuals taken collectively. This broader attribution of responsibility was a deliberate move to close the accountability gaps that powerful non-state actors often exploit.

The Enforcement Gap: Knowledge and Capacity Without Will

The existence of the DHDR proves the concept is sound. Yet, its lack of widespread adoption reveals the core obstacle: a deficit of political commitment. As one UN analysis acknowledges, while knowledge and technical capacity are essential, they “will not suffice where a government lacks the political commitment to hold perpetrators… accountable” . This is the crux of the matter. We have the tools—international courts, commissions of inquiry, and legal frameworks—but they are too often neutralized by a lack of political will.

The mechanisms for accountability are well-established and revolve around three interlinked rights: the right to truth, the right to justice, and the right to an effective remedy and reparation. When these are pursued seriously, as in South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, they can lay a foundation for sustainable peace. However, as scholars from Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights note, the human rights movement “will always register many more shortfalls than achievements, but it would miss its purpose if it did not” . The system is designed to highlight failure, but without the relentless enforcement your premise calls for, these shortfalls become a permanent condition.

Concrete Duties: From Principle to Practice

What would a ruthless enforcement of obligations look like in practice? The DHDR provides specific, actionable examples that move beyond abstract ideals:

· The Duty to Protect Life and Ensure Survival: This extends to taking “reasonable steps to help others whose lives are threatened,” and includes a profound intergenerational responsibility to ensure the survival of future generations, a concept championed by then-UNESCO Director-General Federico Mayor.

· The Duty to Intervene to Prevent Gross Violations: Article 6 of the DHDR explicitly states the duty to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, noting a “collective duty of the States to intervene” when one state fails in its primary responsibility. This directly addresses the kind of international inaction that has allowed atrocities to continue in various conflict zones.

· The Duty to Promote an Equitable International Order: This duty, found in Article 10, cautions that “Economic policies and development should not be pursued at the expense of human rights or social development” . This is a clear, obligation-focused standard against which the policies of governments and international financial institutions could be measured.

The Path Not Yet Taken

The vision is one where the powerful are held to account, where the discourse of community and mutual obligation supersedes a purely individualistic claim to rights. The evidence suggests that the premise is valid: a framework of enforced obligations would have provided a more direct and robust tool for building a just world. The DHDR exists as a testament to this very idea.

However, the question remains whether any document, no matter how well-conceived, can be “ruthlessly enforced” in a world of sovereign states and competing interests. The challenge is not a lack of ideas, but a deficit of collective courage. As one human rights defender from Russia poignantly warns, “Violence never stays inside… it will spread far beyond… when authoritarian states feel they will go unpunished” .

The transition from a culture of rights to a culture of responsibilities is the great unfinished work of the human rights project. I

 The path to a more peaceful world indeed lies in completing the architecture of rights with the foundation of enforced obligations.