Your question raises an important point about the relationship between the SDGs and human rights. The SDGs approach human rights indirectly by design, which reflects both institutional structure and political pragmatism. Since the UN Charter already mandates member states to secure, protect, and promote human rights, empowering UN institutions to monitor compliance and recommend strategies, the SDGs complement rather than duplicate this framework.

SDG 16, which promotes peaceful and inclusive societies, exemplifies this indirect approach. While it does not explicitly center human rights language, its targets reveal the underlying connection. Target 16.10 focuses on protecting fundamental freedoms, essentially addressing negative rights without using formal human rights terminology. Target 16.a calls for independent national human rights institutions complying with the Paris Principles, directly supporting human rights infrastructure without framing it as a rights-based mandate.

The broader scope of SDG 16 further demonstrates this indirect strategy. Other targets address political representation, accountability, and corruption, all of which are fundamental to creating conditions where human rights can flourish. Additional targets focus on building state capacity to combat transnational crimes, including financial crimes, human trafficking, and illicit arms flows. These issues directly impact human security and dignity, yet they are framed as governance and security challenges rather than explicit human rights violations.

This indirect language likely serves strategic purposes: it allows broader consensus among member states with varying human rights records while still advancing substantive protections through concrete targets and indicators.

Ultimately, I would argue, the SDGs are not intended to weaken state sovereignty, but rather to serve as tools of policy harmonization, requiring states to build capacity to address the negative effects of globalization. In this sense, the UN seeks not to erode sovereignty but to enhance state authority under the rule of law paradigm. Human rights emerge as a side effect of this governance-focused experiment rather than its primary objective.

The question then becomes whether this approach effectively promotes human rights or whether more explicit language would better serve accountability and implementation.

Carlos L. Yordan Thank so much sir for your kind words and valuable feedback.