Dignity, Welfare, and the Limits of Sacrifice: Axiomatic Foundations for Human Right

The global human rights framework is failing—not from irrelevance, but from a lack of foundational coherence. Despite formal commitments, rights are routinely violated, fragmented by political will and conceptual fragility. Nowhere is this disjunction more evident than in global health and development, where institutional rhetoric masks systemic inertia. This paper argues that human rights lack a principled foundation, rendering them vulnerable to political manipulation, relativist erosion, and functional collapse. In response, it proposes an axiomatic approach, identifying three irreducible moral commitments—dignity, welfare, and non-expendability—as necessary and jointly sufficient to re-ground the framework. These axioms resist coercive power, protect against majoritarianism, and constrain cultural relativism, offering a structure capable of sustaining universality without imposing uniformity. Rather than relying on abstract theories or cultural consensus, this model works backward—asking what is minimally required for rights to function meaningfully across domains. The axioms clarify contested issues (e.g., abortion) and evaluate institutional legitimacy through a moral lens. They do not resolve all conflicts but render them intelligible and accountable. In a world where the international order is faltering and states increasingly reject moral constraint, these axioms offer a stable foundation for human rights to endure—even, and especially, when institutions fail.