Declarations and "interpetive guidelines" (~1,200 words; 4 -5 minute read)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is, as with all such declarations - no matter how moving their wording - not directly legally enforceable. 

In the case of the UDHR, the "Twin  Covenants" which came afterwards ARE directly legally enforceable, and activists make - in my opinion - a major mistake when they refer to the UDHR rather than the relevant part of the ICCPR or the ICESCR. 

Similarly, the Yogyakarta Principles (both sets) are interpretative  guidelines, and thus are not directly legally enforceable. When I was first told about them, my query as to their legal status was met with a terse and angry "yes, of course, their legally enforceable" - but they're NOT.

Not being legally enforceable does NOT mean they are not useable in lobbying - apart from anything else, their wording is likely to be more poetical and appealing and thus more persuasive than legal wording. 

It does, however, mean that their usage - including reference to status - must be appropriate.

Angrily telling people - especially bigots - they're breaking the law when they're not not only does NOT help, it gives the bigots ammunition to resist any future lobbying - much as the scientists who emailed falsified information damaged the cause of managing the climate crisis. 

The Yogyakarta Principles are sound, well constructed, and are based  on existing human rights law - that are not, in and of themselves, human rights law.