Poorly, and with lots of violations, is how I imagine the framework would work, but by having such a framework we have something that we can refer to, something that we can point to when countries aren't living up to it.

Yes, it is just a peace of paper, except that it is also not once it becomes something to fight for and something that people believe in.

The US declared itself independent while British troops were in the country. It asserted rights against somebody else who didn't recognize them.

And that worked well enough that later people would refer to those assertions when debating freeing the slaves, and it was that which MLK was able to refer to in his speech.

I won't live long enough to see international human rights become a norm and neither will anybody else alive right now. But that doesn't mean that it isn't important that we start creating the norm now.

> A right without enforcement is just a nice idea.

There was a time that all of these were just "nice ideas" in the US

- Same sex marriage

- Women having the right to vote

- People of color having the right to freedom

- And on the list goes

Most of these rights were not enforced, or even recognized until people fought either with pens or with weapons and progress was made.

I linked to the UN's framework for this in my parent comment, and while I agree that this is an incredibly hard problem to address globally, we shouldn't discount the value and power of "nice ideas".