@misc{9230787,
  abstract     = {{This thesis analyses the structural limitations of the prevailing entitlement-based framework of international human rights law (IHRL), particularly in pluralistic and multicultural societies, and evaluates whether integrating duties alongside existing rights, a duty-infused reconceptualization, can address those limitations or not?
The study draws its primary motivation from a structural crisis in contemporary IHRL paradigm. As illustrated by the 2024 UK riots and the simultaneous collapse of state authority in Bangladesh, the current entitlement-based framework fails in contexts where they are most urgently needed, such failure is not rooted in poor draftsmanship, but because of a deeper design flaw. By centering individual claims against the state while ignoring communal obligation, the current model suffers from an applicability crisis rooted in foundations, an impact paradox arising from the absence of localized duty-barriers, and an enforcement failure caused by its reliance on external coercion rather than internalized reciprocity.
To address these problems, this thesis employs a mixed methodology, consisting of a legal dogmatic analysis as the primary method, supplemented by an interdisciplinary approach drawing on comparative legal theory, cognitive science, linguistics, and case study analysis. 
Using this methodology, the thesis after arguing for a duty-infused framework from chapter three to chapter eight, reaches to this conclusion that a duty-infused reconceptualization of IHRL substantially addresses the identified limitations. This thesis advocates for framing rights alongside corresponding duties, as it demonstrates that doing so resolves the applicability crisis by grounding universal norms in culturally and linguistically familiar vocabularies of obligation, bridges the impact paradox by converting passive right-holders into active duty-bearers, and strengthens enforcement by aligning legal frameworks with the human brain’s biological predisposition toward reciprocity rather than fear of sanction. Critically, the thesis also identifies and safeguards against the risks of this shift, including the authoritarian weaponization of duty and the subordination of individual rights to collective demands, through principles of determinacy, proportionality, and a non-derogable rights floor.}},
  author       = {{Mahmood, Nafiz Absar}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{From Entitlements to Obligations: A Duty-Infused Reconceptualization of International Human Rights Law}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}