Human Rights Policy
Decentralized Autonomous Organization

CONTENTS

Introduction
1. Human Victims
2. Human Nature
3. The Modern State
4. Fundamental Human Rights
5. Political Ideologies
6. Human Rights Ideology
7. Forms of Government
Conclusions and Prospects

INTRODUCTION

In the modern world, where technology and globalization promise unprecedented progress, human rights violations remain one of the most acute problems facing humanity. To illustrate this tragic reality, consider the recent events in Iran at the end of 2025 - beginning of 2026, when massive anti-government protests, triggered by economic crisis, hyperinflation, and corruption, escalated into brutal suppression. The protests began on December 28, 2025, in Tehran and spread to hundreds of cities, evolving from economic demands to political slogans against the regime, such as “Death to the Dictator” and “Women, Life, Freedom.” The peak of violence occurred on January 8-9, 2026, when security forces, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and police, used firearms against peaceful demonstrators. According to estimates from independent sources such as Iran Human Rights and Human Rights Watch, between 15,000 and 30,000 people were killed during the protests, while the official figures provided by the authorities are significantly understated - around 3,000 [1][2]. These events have been classified as crimes against humanity by the United Nations [3]. Such a massacre not only shocks with its scale but also underscores the vulnerability of individual rights in the face of the state’s coercive machinery, reminding us of the urgent need to rethink mechanisms for their protection.

The world is experiencing a crisis of democracy, exacerbated by wars, populism, climate change, and technological challenges. According to Freedom House data in the report “Freedom in the World 2025,” freedom levels declined in 60 countries, affecting over 40% of the world’s population through conflicts, repression, and election manipulation [4]. For example, the Russo-Ukrainian war since 2014 has resulted in approximately 1.8-2.0 million casualties [5]. Similarly, the civil war in Yemen since 2014 has caused 377-500 thousand deaths, mostly indirect, due to famine and disease [6]. In the post-colonial world, inequality is intensifying: according to the World Bank, over 800 million people live in extreme poverty, which often leads to rights violations due to social instability [7]. Technologies such as artificial intelligence and mass surveillance add new threats—for instance, in China, the social credit system restricts freedom for millions [8]. These examples demonstrate that human rights violations are not a relic of the past but a systemic crisis threatening the stability of global society.

Most popular explanations for the causes of such violations are erroneous or incomplete. For instance, geographical or climatic theories, as in Jared Diamond’s work “Guns, Germs, and Steel” [9], ignore the role of political ideologies and institutions. Cultural or religious interpretations, often linked to “national character,” are contradicted by empirical data: violence decreases not through cultural changes but through institutional reforms [10]. The theory of “bad people in power” is overly simplistic, as it ignores structural factors such as the state’s monopoly on force, as demonstrated in Rudolph Rummel’s analysis [11]. Even explanations popular in pseudoscientific discussions—through IQ or genetics—are rejected as reductionist, since they fail to account for social learning and upbringing [12].

The main thesis of this manifesto is that the true cause of mass human rights violations lies in the mismatch between modern state structures and the natural rights of the individual—such as the right to life, liberty, and property—which stem from human nature itself, as described by John Locke [13]. States, as institutions with a monopoly on legitimate violence (per Max Weber [14]), often prioritize collective interests over individual ones, leading to repression. An effective solution could be a decentralized community, such as the Human Rights Policy DAO, where responsibility for protecting rights is placed on society through consensus and technology, rather than on bureaucratic apparatuses. This explanation surpasses others because it is grounded in empirical data on the reduction of violence in societies with strong civic institutions [10] and current trends toward decentralization [15].

The modern state, while retaining the monopoly on legitimate violence (as defined by Max Weber in 1919), effectively reproduces a model that divides society into a privileged elite and controlled masses. The privileged group, controlling resources, security structures, and media, arranges its life according to standards reminiscent of the luxury of monarchical courts, while the rest of the population is forced to function under conditions of limited freedom, economic dependence, and constant threat of repression. This model can be conditionally called “modern soft-form slavery,” based not on crude physical coercion but on control through debt, taxes, censorship, selective justice, and information manipulation.

Currently, in many countries, there is an active “hunt” for those who refuse to silently accept such a system. The time available for publicly expressing alternative views is shrinking, and the number of criminal prosecutions for “state treason,” “discrediting,” “spreading disinformation,” and other articles used to suppress dissent is growing (reports by Amnesty International, 2025; Freedom House, 2025) [8][4]. The Human Rights Policy DAO is one possible public act of resistance within the legal field, and that is why it is essential to clearly formulate the diagnosis and propose a realistic alternative—a decentralized, consensus-based model for protecting natural human rights that does not depend on the goodwill of elites or bureaucratic institutions.

This manifesto is an attempt to create a socially significant project for change. It is structured to sequentially unfold the topic. After reading it, the reader will gain not only an understanding of the causes of human rights violations but also tools for active participation in preventing them, feeling inspired to make changes.

But to deeply understand why human rights are constantly violated, let us begin with an analysis of the scale of human losses in historical context.

1. HUMAN VICTIMS

Human losses resulting from human rights violations—such as wars, repressions, genocides, and man-made famines—constitute one of the most tragic chapters in the history of humanity. These losses are not limited to direct casualties of combat but also include indirect consequences such as starvation, disease, sexual violence, and psychological trauma. Studying this data not only illustrates the scale of the problem but also helps reveal patterns of violence that often stem from political ideologies and state structures. According to estimates by historians and researchers, the total number of deaths from organized violence throughout history reaches hundreds of millions, with a downward trend in the percentage relative to population in the modern era, as demonstrated in Steven Pinker’s work [1]. This section is structured chronologically and thematically, drawing on empirical data from sources such as the Uppsala Conflict Data Program database [2] and Rudolph Rummel’s research [3]. Analyzing these losses highlights the necessity of transitioning to decentralized mechanisms for rights protection, which will be discussed in subsequent sections.

The history of humanity is filled with conflicts that led to colossal losses. World War II (1939-1945) remains the deadliest, with estimates of 70-85 million deaths, including both combat and civilian losses from famine, bombings, and genocides [3; 4]. The conquests of the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan (1206-1368) caused 40-70 million deaths, mainly through mass killings and epidemics [4]. The Taiping Rebellion in China (1850-1864) claimed 20-30 million lives, combining civil war with religious conflict [1]. World War I (1914-1918) resulted in 15-20 million deaths, a significant portion of which were due to disease in the trenches [4]. The Thirty Years’ War in Europe (1618-1648) caused 5-8 million deaths, devastating entire regions through religious and political strife [1]. These examples demonstrate how state ambitions and ideological conflicts turn the state into an instrument of mass killing, disregarding the natural rights to life and liberty as defined by Max Weber [5].

After World War II, the number of large-scale interstate wars decreased, but civil conflicts and regional wars continue to inflict enormous losses. The Second Congo War (1998-2003, with continuations) led to 3.5-5.4 million deaths, mostly indirect, due to hunger and disease [2]. The Vietnam War (1955-1975) claimed 1.5-3.8 million lives, intertwining colonial struggle with ideological confrontation [6]. The Korean War (1950-1953) resulted in 1.2-3.5 million deaths, a large proportion of them civilians [7]. The Russo-Ukrainian war (since 2014), as of 2026, has caused 500,000-900,000 deaths, including both military and civilian losses [2]. The Syrian civil war (since 2011) has taken 580,000-650,000 lives, and the war in Yemen (since 2014) — 377,000-500,000, mostly due to humanitarian crises [8]. In total, since 1945, approximately 285-300 armed conflicts have occurred, with a peak of 61 active conflicts in 2024 [2]. These data illustrate how modern conflicts have evolved from large-scale battles to protracted wars in which civilians suffer the most, underscoring the ineffectiveness of international institutions, such as the United Nations, in preventing human rights violations.

In addition to wars, mass human rights violations frequently occur through democide — killings committed by governments against their own population. The communist regime in China under Mao Zedong (1949-1976) led to 40-80 million deaths through repression, man-made famines, and political purges [9]. The Soviet Union under Stalin (1921-1953) claimed 15-25 million lives through the Gulag, executions, and deportations [10]. Nazi Germany (1933-1945) caused 15-21 million deaths, including the Holocaust [3]. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia (1975-1979) took 1.7-2.5 million lives through genocide [9]. North Korea since 1948 has resulted in 1.5-3.5 million deaths from repression [3]. These examples, documented in empirical studies, show how totalitarian ideologies transform the state into an instrument of mass murder, disregarding natural rights to life and liberty as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Man-made famines, often caused by political decisions, represent another form of human rights violations. The Great Chinese Famine (1959-1961) claimed 15-55 million lives due to the misguided policies of the “Great Leap Forward” [11]. The Soviet Holodomor in Ukraine (1932-1933) resulted in 3-7 million deaths through collectivization [12]. The Bengal Famine (1943) took 2-3 million lives due to colonial policy [13]. These events, analyzed using archival data, demonstrate how state decisions can transform economic crises into mass violations of the right to life, highlighting the role of bureaucratic indifference.

Human rights violations often lead to secondary losses that are difficult to quantify precisely but reach tens of millions. Sexual violence in conflicts of the 20th-21st centuries has affected 10-50 million people, with non-consensual acts occurring in 1 in 20-50 cases [14; 15]. Torture was experienced by 10-30 million people in the 20th century [16]. Child soldiers (1990-2025) number 250,000-500,000 [14]. Post-traumatic stress disorder and suicides add tens of thousands of deaths per conflict [16]. These figures illustrate how rights violations create a chain reaction of suffering that spans generations.

In conclusion, human losses from human rights violations amount to hundreds of millions, with a downward trend in the modern era due to institutional changes [1]. Nevertheless, as contemporary conflicts show, the problem persists because of state monopolies on violence. This urges the search for alternatives, such as decentralized communities, to protect natural rights.

2. HUMAN NATURE

Understanding human nature is key to analyzing human rights violations, as it is the basic biological, psychological, and social aspects that determine the potential for aggression, violence, and cooperation. Humans (Homo sapiens) possess the highest level of cognitive abilities among all primates and are evolutionarily adapted to survival in complex environments where aggression played both a protective and destructive role. This section examines human nature through the lens of evolutionary, biological, social, and psychological factors, drawing on empirical research. Analyzing these elements helps explain why human rights violations, such as wars or repressions, occur systematically and underscores the role of education in preventing them. As Steven Pinker notes in his work, human aggression is not an inevitable fate but the result of the interaction between innate predispositions and the environment, with a tendency to decrease in civilized societies [1].

Aggression in humans has deep evolutionary roots shaped by natural selection processes to ensure survival and reproduction. In prehistoric conditions, aggression helped compete for resources such as food, territory, or mates, as described in evolutionary psychology. David Buss and Todd Shackelford demonstrate that aggressive behavior increased reproductive success by protecting the group from threats [2]. Studies of primates, close relatives of humans, confirm this adaptability: in chimpanzees, for example, intergroup violence is the norm, similar to human wars [3]. Richard Wrangham in his book distinguishes between reactive aggression (spontaneous, as a “fight or flight” response) and proactive aggression (planned, group-based), with the latter particularly developed in humans for organized violence [4]. These evolutionary mechanisms explain why human rights violations often manifest in the form of collective violence, but they also point to the potential for “self-domestication” through social norms that reduce aggression in modern societies.

At the biological level, aggression is regulated by neural structures, hormones, and genetic factors. The amygdala in the brain activates the response to threat, triggering defense mechanisms [5]. The hormone testosterone, especially in men, correlates with increased aggressiveness, as shown in meta-analyses [6]. Low serotonin levels are associated with impulsive aggression, while genetic variations such as the mutation in the MAOA gene (known as the “warrior gene”) increase the risk of violence under adverse environmental conditions [7]. These biological aspects do not determine behavior but interact with external factors: for example, genetic predisposition to aggression manifests more strongly in environments with high levels of stress or violence [8]. Understanding these mechanisms explains why human rights violations, such as torture or genocides, often arise in stressful social conditions where biological impulses are not restrained by norms.

The social environment and psychological processes significantly modify innate aggression. Albert Bandura’s social learning theory asserts that aggression is copied through observation of behavioral models, especially in the family or media [9]. Research shows that domestic violence increases the risk of aggression in children by 2-4 times [10]. The frustration-aggression psychological theory explains violence as a reaction to obstacles in achieving goals [11]. Cultural norms influence the manifestation of aggression: in some societies it is stigmatized, in others it is normalized in certain contexts [12]. Experiments by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo demonstrate how authority and roles turn ordinary people into perpetrators of violence, legitimizing rights violations [13]; [14]. These factors explain mass violations, such as genocides, where the dehumanization of victims removes moral barriers [15].

Education and upbringing are powerful tools for reducing aggression, transforming the potential for violence into cooperation. Early family upbringing shapes the “cycle of violence”: victims of childhood violence become aggressors with a risk 1.5-3 times higher [16]. Conversely, school programs for social-emotional learning reduce aggression with an effect size of 0.21-0.29 [17]. In authoritarian regimes, education can exacerbate aggression through propaganda and dehumanization, as in Nazi Germany or Rwanda [18]. Historically, the spread of education correlates with a reduction in violence: homicide rates in Europe fell 10-100 times from the 14th-15th centuries in parallel with the Enlightenment [19]. These data emphasize that education oriented toward empathy and critical thinking can prevent rights violations, transforming human nature as the foundation for a just society.

In conclusion, human nature combines the potential for aggression with the possibility of cooperation, where evolutionary and biological factors interact with social and psychological ones. Research such as the works of Pinker and Bandura shows that aggression is not fatal but decreases through education and norms [1]. This understanding explains the roots of human rights violations and points to the necessity of upbringing oriented toward respect for life, liberty, and property as the foundation for further analysis of the state and human rights.

3. THE MODERN STATE

The modern state is the central institution in the system of human rights protection, while at the same time serving as a potential source of their violations due to its monopoly on legitimate violence. According to the classic definition by Max Weber, the state is a political organization that possesses sovereignty over a given territory and a monopoly on the application of coercive violence through a specialized apparatus [1]. In the 2020s, this model has evolved, incorporating international obligations such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which proclaims universal rights to life, liberty, and security [2]. However, as empirical data show, states often prioritize collective interests over individual ones, leading to repression. This section analyzes the structure of the modern state, its coercive apparatus, mechanisms for rights protection, restrictions on self-defense, and critical aspects, drawing on sources such as Freedom House reports [3] and the Uppsala Conflict Data Program databases [4]. Understanding these elements illustrates why the traditional state model requires supplementation with decentralized alternatives, which will be discussed in subsequent sections.

The modern state is a sovereign, territorially defined organization with a system of law, taxation, and representative institutions, recognized by other states and international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), which unites 193 member states [5]. A key element is the coercive apparatus, which includes police, army, border guards, national guard, and special services, ensuring the monopoly on violence. According to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute [6] and the World Bank [7], on average worldwide, active military forces constitute 0.4-1.0% of the population in peacetime, with higher figures in countries facing high threats (for example, North Korea — around 5% [8]). Police forces, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [9], comprise 2-4 persons per 1,000 inhabitants in developed countries (0.2-0.4%), with higher levels in post-Soviet regions (4-6 per 1,000). Overall, the coercive apparatus rarely exceeds 0.7-1.2% of the population, including auxiliary structures, as shown in analyses by Our World in Data [10]. This concentration of power ensures stability but also creates a risk of abuse when the apparatus is used to suppress dissent, as in cases of political repression.

In democratic states, a multi-level system of human rights protection operates, entrusted to national, regional, and global mechanisms, as described in United Nations Human Rights reports [11]. At the national level, constitutions and laws ensure the direct application of rights, with institutions such as ombudsmen or constitutional courts handling 95-98% of complaints [12]. Regional systems strengthen protection: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of the Council of Europe processes 50-60 thousand complaints annually, issuing pilot judgments for systemic issues [13]. The Court of Justice of the European Union focuses on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, influencing the legal regulation of personal data processing and the implementation of artificial intelligence technologies [14]. In Africa, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights is becoming more active, though enforcement of decisions remains weak [15]. At the global level, the UN Human Rights Council and treaty bodies monitor compliance, but their effectiveness is limited by the lack of enforcement mechanisms [16]. These systems provide significant protection in democracies, but their dependence on state goodwill makes them vulnerable in authoritarian regimes.

Restrictions on self-defense represent a critical aspect of the modern state. In many jurisdictions, the right to self-defense is limited by proportionality requirements and the obligation to retreat, while access to effective means of self-defense (particularly firearms) is heavily regulated or prohibited [17]. This creates an asymmetry: citizens are disarmed while the state retains a monopoly on force. Empirical data show that in countries with strict gun control, rates of violent crime do not necessarily decrease, while the risk of state repression increases [18]. The state’s monopoly on violence, while intended to prevent anarchy, often leads to abuse when elites use coercive structures to maintain power, as documented in cases of mass repression [19].

The modern state faces criticism for bureaucratic inefficiency, corruption, and prioritization of elite interests over public good. Bureaucracy, as analyzed by Max Weber, tends toward self-preservation through expansion of control and formal procedures [1]. Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International shows persistent high levels of corruption in many countries, correlating with human rights violations [20]. Selective justice and political persecution remain widespread: political prisoners number in the tens of thousands globally, according to Amnesty International [21]. These structural flaws highlight the limitations of the state as the sole guarantor of rights and the need for decentralized, community-based alternatives.

In conclusion, the modern state provides a framework for rights protection through legal and institutional mechanisms, but its monopoly on violence and bureaucratic nature create inherent risks of abuse. Empirical evidence from Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, and historical analyses shows that democratic institutions mitigate but do not eliminate these risks, while authoritarian regimes amplify them. This necessitates the development of complementary decentralized models that distribute responsibility for rights protection across society, reducing dependence on state structures and enhancing resilience against violations.

4. FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS

Fundamental human rights are inalienable entitlements inherent to every person by virtue of being human, independent of state recognition, citizenship, or any other condition. They stem from human nature itself and form the ethical and legal foundation for any just social order. This section examines the core set of fundamental rights as recognized in international law, philosophical tradition, and the Human Rights Policy DAO document, emphasizing their natural-law basis, inalienability, and universality. The analysis draws on classical works by John Locke and John Finnis, as well as modern international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [2]. Understanding these rights is essential for identifying violations and building mechanisms for their effective protection beyond state institutions.

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, encompassing not only protection from arbitrary killing but also the conditions necessary for biological existence and dignified survival. It includes:

• protection from murder, extrajudicial executions, and death penalties imposed without due process;
• access to basic means of subsistence — food, water, shelter, and medical care;
• the right to reasonable self-defense when life is directly threatened;
• prohibition of actions that foreseeably lead to mass death (genocide, democide, man-made famines).

Violation of the right to life constitutes the gravest form of human rights abuse and cannot be justified by any collective goal, ideology, or state interest [3].

The right to liberty includes freedom of thought, conscience, expression, movement, association, and the inviolability of personal autonomy. It prohibits:

• arbitrary arrest and detention without judicial oversight;
• slavery, forced labor, and human trafficking;
• censorship, prior restraint, and punishment for peaceful expression of opinions;
• coercive interference in private life, family, and personal beliefs.

Liberty is the precondition for the development of personality and participation in social life. Its systematic restriction transforms individuals into subjects rather than free agents [4].

The right to property protects both material and intellectual possessions acquired through labor or legitimate transfer. It guarantees:

• inviolability of legitimately acquired possessions;
• protection against arbitrary expropriation without fair compensation;
• freedom to use, dispose of, and bequeath property;
• recognition of intellectual property rights (copyright, patents, trademarks).

Violation of property rights destroys economic freedom, undermines personal independence, and often serves as a tool of political control [5].

The right to equality before the law and fair judicial protection ensures that no person or group is above or below the law. Core elements include:

• presumption of innocence;
• right to a fair, public, and timely trial by an independent and impartial tribunal;
• prohibition of discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, political opinion, or social origin;
• right to effective remedy and compensation for miscarriage of justice.

Absence of fair trial mechanisms turns the legal system into an instrument of repression rather than justice [6].

These four clusters of rights — life, liberty, property, and equality/fair trial — form the irreducible minimum that any legitimate social order must respect. They are not granted by the state but pre-exist it; the state’s legitimate function is to secure, not to create or limit them [7]. Any ideology or political system that subordinates these rights to collective goals, class interests, religious doctrine, or state security inevitably leads to systematic violations.

The Human Rights Policy DAO document (available at humanrightspolicy.dao via IPFS) codifies these rights in a clear, decentralized, and globally accessible form, serving as a reference point for community-based monitoring, education, and protection mechanisms. By placing these rights at the center of its ideology, the DAO seeks to create a normative framework that transcends state borders and bureaucratic discretion.

In conclusion, fundamental human rights are not negotiable concessions but absolute limits on power — whether state, corporate, religious, or collective. Their violation is never justified by higher purposes; rather, any purpose that requires their violation is illegitimate by definition. Protecting these rights requires not only legal instruments but also widespread education, social consensus, and decentralized enforcement structures capable of functioning even when state mechanisms fail or turn against individuals.

5. POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES

Political ideologies are comprehensive systems of beliefs and values that shape perceptions of society, power, justice, and the proper organization of human relations. They serve as frameworks for justifying or criticizing existing institutions and proposing alternatives. In the context of human rights policy, the key question is the degree to which each ideology recognizes, respects, and effectively protects the inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and equality before the law — or, conversely, subordinates them to collective goals, class interests, national/racial purity, religious truth, or state power. This section classifies major modern political ideologies according to their inherent risk of large-scale human rights violations, drawing on historical experience, empirical data on democide and repression, and philosophical analysis.

The risk level is assessed on a scale from low to very high based on:

• historical record of mass killings, political repression, and systematic rights violations under regimes explicitly guided by the ideology;
• philosophical premises concerning the priority of the individual versus the collective;
• mechanisms (or absence thereof) for limiting power and protecting minorities.

Low risk

Classical liberalism / libertarianism Places the highest value on individual rights, limited government, rule of law, and free markets. The state exists primarily to protect life, liberty, and property (Locke, Nozick) [1][2]. Historical examples (19th-century Britain, Switzerland, post-WWII Western democracies with strong liberal institutions) show the lowest per-capita rates of democide and political violence among modern systems. Risk of large-scale violations — low.

Conservative constitutionalism Emphasizes tradition, gradual change, separation of powers, and protection of inherited liberties within a constitutional framework (Burke, Hayek) [3][4]. When combined with strong rule-of-law institutions, demonstrates good human rights performance (United Kingdom, Nordic countries before heavy welfare-state expansion). Risk — low to moderate.

Moderate risk

Social democracy / welfare-state liberalism Seeks to combine market economy with extensive redistribution and regulation to reduce inequality. In practice, usually preserves core political and civil rights, but economic rights (property, freedom of contract) can be significantly restricted through taxation, regulation, and mandatory social programs. Risk of political repression remains low, but risk of gradual erosion of economic liberty — moderate [5].

Christian democracy Combines market elements with strong social doctrine and subsidiarity principle. Generally respects civil and political rights while promoting family values and social solidarity. Historical record (post-war Germany, Italy, Belgium) shows low levels of repression. Risk — low to moderate.

High risk

Marxism-Leninism / Communism (in power) Explicitly subordinates individual rights to class struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat. Historical record includes the largest documented cases of democide: 65–100 million deaths under communist regimes in the 20th century (Black Book of Communism, Rummel) [6][7]. Systematic violation of rights to life, liberty, property, and fair trial is not an aberration but a structural feature required for realization of the program. Risk — very high.

National Socialism / Fascism Subordinates individual to the nation/race/state. Rejects universal human rights in favor of collective destiny and Führerprinzip. Direct responsibility for the Holocaust and tens of millions of deaths in World War II and occupation policies. Risk — very high [8].

Very high risk

Totalitarian ideologies in general (regardless of specific content — whether religious, nationalist, socialist, or theocratic) Characterized by: - claim to possess absolute truth; - rejection of pluralism; - intention to control all spheres of life (Arendt) [9]; - systematic use of terror as governance tool. Empirical data show that regimes crossing into full totalitarianism produce the highest per-capita death tolls and most complete destruction of human rights [7].

Radical political Islamism (theocratic totalitarianism) When it seeks to establish a caliphate or theocratic state governed by a strict interpretation of Sharia that overrides universal human rights, demonstrates very high risk — systematic discrimination against women, religious minorities, apostates, and secular thinkers; corporal punishments; executions for thought crimes (Iran after 1979, Taliban regimes, ISIS) [10].

In conclusion, not all political ideologies are equally compatible with the protection of fundamental human rights. Ideologies that treat individual rights as derivative or conditional upon serving a higher collective purpose (class, nation, race, religion, revolution) have repeatedly produced catastrophic human rights records when they gained sufficient power. Only those ideologies that recognize individual rights as pre-political, inalienable, and setting absolute limits on legitimate authority demonstrate consistently low levels of large-scale violations. This empirical pattern forms the normative basis for the Human Rights Policy DAO: the only acceptable political framework is one that unconditionally subordinates all collective projects to the inviolability of life, liberty, property, and fair judicial process.

6. HUMAN RIGHTS IDEOLOGY

The ideology of human rights represents a comprehensive approach to protecting the inalienable rights of every human being, based on the principles of natural law and decentralized governance. This ideology is embodied through Human Rights Policy and a decentralized autonomous organization, where responsibility for upholding rights is placed on society rather than exclusively on state institutions. This approach is effective because it engages every individual in the process, promoting awareness of rights, duties, and responsibilities. As John Finnis notes in his work, basic human goods — such as life, liberty, and sociality — require collective protection through rational norms independent of state monopoly [1]. This section analyzes the key principles of the policy, its advantages, implementation mechanisms, and challenges, drawing on empirical data and historical experience.

The human rights policy within this project is formed as a decentralized document: humanrightspolicy.dao (available via IPFS: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmfZ4Qg1XiR6Y1Lnm4fnykWi6EhpwmkVSzzVNiiQS6YMSF/). The document has been translated into various languages of the world, facilitating its global use and inclusivity. It systematizes the fundamental human rights and clearly defines actions that constitute their violations. The policy is grounded in the foundational principles of international human rights law, primarily the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (adopted on December 10, 1948, resolution 217 A (III)) [2] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted on December 16, 1966, entered into force on March 23, 1976) [3].

The key rights enshrined in the document include:

• The right to life — encompasses ensuring the biological existence of a person, satisfaction of basic physiological needs (food, water, housing, safety), the right to self-defense within the limits of reasonable necessity, and access to timely and quality medical care.
• The right to liberty — includes freedom of thought, conscience and expression of views, freedom of speech and dissemination of information, freedom of action and movement, as well as freedom to associate in associations and organizations.
• The right to property — covers both tangible (material) and intangible property (intellectual property, copyrights, etc.), guaranteeing its inviolability, protection from unlawful seizure, as well as the right to inheritance and free disposal of one’s property.
• The right to equality before the law and fair judicial protection — provides for equal application of the law to all without discrimination, presumption of innocence, the right to an impartial and independent court, fair and public hearing of the case within a reasonable time, as well as the right to compensation in case of judicial error or unlawful conviction.

The document was created based on the historical experience of the struggle for human rights, as well as contemporary challenges and societal demands for effective protection of human dignity. An important feature is its adaptability: the provisions of the policy can be supplemented or clarified through consensus in the decentralized community, ensuring flexibility and alignment with the evolving needs of society.

The decentralized autonomous organization Human Rights Policy offers a new concept in which the protection of rights becomes a collective responsibility of society. Every person is directly involved: they know their rights, duties, consequences of violations, and methods of protection, which helps prevent individual attacks. This aligns with Albert Bandura’s social learning theory, where awareness of norms through education reduces aggression [4]. Furthermore, people who uphold rights can unite into communities based on territorial, professional, or other criteria, thereby forming groups with more resources than the violators. Such cooperation is effective against large-scale threats, similar to models of collective security in international law [5]. The sole purpose of the ideology is the observance of human rights and the punishment of violators, which distinguishes it from state systems where elite interests often dominate [6].

Monitoring compliance with rights and tracking violations is carried out through the web platform humanrightspolicy.org. This international social resource provides:

• Public display of evidence of human rights violations and individuals/structures involved in them;
• The ability for victims to submit requests for support and assistance;
• Assessment and rating of the level of freedom observance in different countries;
• Coordination of community actions.

The platform integrates the artificial intelligence Atticus, specially developed for analysis, consultations, and processing of issues related to human rights, thereby increasing the accessibility of professional assessment for platform users.

Education plays a key role in the implementation of the policy. The project emphasizes the introduction of human rights education programs in schools and universities, based on UNESCO recommendations on education for peace, human rights, and sustainable development (2023) [7]. Studies show that school-based social-emotional learning programs reduce aggression and promote positive youth development: a meta-analysis indicates that such interventions are twice as effective as coercive methods [8, 9]. UNESCO and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasize key success factors for human rights education, including integration into curricula and community involvement [10].

State bureaucracy, as Max Weber noted, serves the self-preservation of elites through taxation and force [11]. The ideology of human rights opposes this, being based on the natural, biological essence of humans — on those psychological mechanisms and behavioral predispositions formed during evolution. That is why rights must be protected collectively and decentrally — by society, and not only by the state, which itself can become an instrument of that same evolutionary aggression [12]. The planet is home to over 8 billion people, and only about 1% of this number hold real power, control over coercive structures, the state apparatus, or organized groups. It is these people or groups that often systematically violate human rights — both on a mass scale and against individuals. This power asymmetry makes human rights protection vulnerable, as violators often control resources, weapons, and mechanisms of coercion.

A key factor in changing this balance is the scale and number of active followers of the decentralized human rights protection community. Political science research shows that nonviolent mass campaigns achieve their goals significantly more often than violent ones: roughly twice as effectively. Particularly striking is the so-called “3.5% rule,” formulated based on the analysis of hundreds of campaigns in the 20th–21st centuries: no nonviolent movement that engaged the active participation of at least 3.5% of the population of a country (or the corresponding global equivalent at its peak) has ever failed to achieve its primary political objectives [13, 14, 15, 16].

In the context of a global decentralized network not tied to any specific territory, this dynamic becomes even more powerful. Even weapons of mass destruction, with which some authoritarian regimes threaten civilized societies, lose their absolute persuasiveness as a deterrent tool. For dictators and authoritarian elites, adherence to universal human rights poses an existential threat to their power, as it undermines their monopoly on force, censorship, and impunity. A global decentralized community encompassing millions of people worldwide makes “targeted” suppression of resistance impossible: there is no single center that can be destroyed, no borders that can be closed.

When the number of conscious human rights defenders reaches a critical mass, qualitative shifts occur: loyalty of elites and security forces begins to waver, economic pressure intensifies, and the international legitimacy of violators declines. Such a community becomes a powerful deterrent against any form of violation — from local repressions to systemic crimes against humanity. The absence of a fixed territory and hierarchical center makes it resistant to traditional methods of suppression, turning global scale into a decisive advantage.

Joining such a community is not only a moral choice but also a strategically rational step: it is the number and resilience of followers that ultimately determine whose side real power and the ability to ensure universal protection of human dignity will fall on.

In conclusion, the ideology of human rights through a decentralized autonomous organization transforms the protection of rights into a collective mission, overcoming any limitations. Based on the principles of Locke, Finnis, and empirical data [1, 17], it offers justice where violations are punished and rights are universal. Such an organization is not against the state but complements it, allowing participation in protection. This leads to the formation of governance fully compatible with human rights — a topic to be examined in the next section.

7. FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

Forms of government determine how power is organized in society and how inalienable human rights — such as life, liberty, and property — are protected or violated. In the context of human rights policy, which emphasizes universal adherence to these rights, the choice of government form is critical: it must prevent abuses of power and ensure consensual governance. Classical thinkers such as Aristotle and Plato classified forms of government by the number of rulers and their orientation toward the common good, while modern classifications take into account democratic, authoritarian, and totalitarian regimes. As Robert Dahl notes in his work, an effective form of government must balance citizen participation with the protection of minorities to avoid the tyranny of the majority [1]. This section examines the most well-known forms of government, their characteristics, historical examples, and compatibility with human rights, drawing on sources such as the works of Aristotle [2], Montesquieu [3], and Freedom House reports [4]. The analysis demonstrates why some forms are incompatible with human rights policy and proposes adaptations to ensure universal protection.

The classical triad of forms of government proposed by Aristotle in “Politics” [2] includes monarchy (rule by one, the best form, which can degenerate into tyranny), aristocracy (rule by the best, which degrades into oligarchy), and polity (a mixed form of government combining elements of majority rule and the influence of the wealthy) or democracy (rule by the people, which can turn into ochlocracy, or mob rule). Aristotle emphasized that the best form is polity, where the middle class dominates, ensuring stability and justice [5]. Plato in “The Republic” [6] developed this idea, describing the cycle of forms: from aristocracy to tyranny through democracy, where unbounded freedom leads to chaos [7]. Montesquieu in “The Spirit of the Laws” [3] added the separation of powers as a safeguard against tyranny, classifying republics (democratic or aristocratic), monarchies, and despotisms [8].

Modern classification, as in the works of Juan Linz, divides regimes into democratic (republics and constitutional monarchies), authoritarian, and totalitarian [9]. Democratic regimes dominate in Western Europe, the United States, and Canada, focusing on elections and rights; authoritarian ones, such as in Russia or China, restrict opposition; totalitarian ones, such as in North Korea, exercise total control [4]. The most common forms include constitutional monarchy (United Kingdom, Sweden), presidential republic (United States, Brazil), parliamentary republic (Germany, India), and mixed (France), with varying degrees of recognition reflecting their presence in popular culture and history [1].

Not all forms of government are compatible with human rights policy, as some theoretically or practically violate inalienable rights. Absolute monarchy, where the monarch holds unlimited power, risks tyranny, violating liberty and equality; example — Saudi Arabia, where repression of dissidents is documented [10]. Constitutional monarchy, where the monarch is symbolic and power lies with parliament, has low risk, as in the United Kingdom, where the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) ensures protection [11]. Republics, where the head is elected, are generally compatible, but the presidential form risks concentration of power, as in Mexico with elements of corruption [4]. Parliamentary republic balances powers, with low risk, as in Germany [9]. Dictatorship or autocracy — rule by one person without elections — has high risk of repression, as in North Korea [12]. Oligarchy — rule by the elite — violates equality, as in the historical Venetian Republic [13]. Theocracy is based on religious laws, risking discrimination, as in Iran [14]. Tyranny — brutal one-person rule — is the classic example of violations [6].

Modern authoritarian and totalitarian regimes often violate rights through censorship, torture, and mass repression, as in China with the persecution of Uyghurs [15]. Even democracy is not always compatible: if the majority supports violations of minority rights, this leads to the “tyranny of the majority,” as described by Alexis de Tocqueville [16]. Example — ochlocracy, where the mob ignores rights, as in some populist regimes [17].

For human rights policy, forms that violate rights (tyranny, oligarchy, totalitarianism) are rejected as criminal. What remains are adapted democratic models where consensus protects minorities. Direct democracy, as in Switzerland with referendums, carries risk if the majority votes to violate minority rights, but representative democracy with strong institutions, public oversight, and mechanisms for removal from office, as in constitutional monarchies or republics, can be compatible [1]. A possible new form — decentralized, based on DAO, where decisions are made by consensus without leaders, similar to anarchist ideas but focused on rights [18]. Such a model avoids the problems of democracy where the majority can violate rights, ensuring universal protection.

In conclusion, forms of government for human rights policy must be compatible with inalienable rights, rejecting authoritarian models and adapting democratic ones with an emphasis on consensus. The analysis, based on Aristotle [2], Montesquieu [3], and contemporary reports [4], emphasizes that effectiveness depends on practice. This leads to conclusions and prospects, where a new form may become reality.

<

CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS

In this manifesto, the ideology of human rights is examined as a universal approach to protecting the inalienable rights of every individual, drawing from human nature, the structure of the modern state, and an analysis of political ideologies. The main thesis is that violations of human rights — such as wars, repressions, and famines — are systemic consequences of state monopolies on force and ideologies that place collective interests above individual ones. Human losses from these violations reach hundreds of millions: for example, World War II claimed 70–85 million lives [1], while modern conflicts, such as the Russian-Ukrainian war, have added 500–900 thousand deaths as of 2026 [2]. Human nature, as that of an intelligent primate with evolutionary predispositions toward aggression [3], is not fatal: education and upbringing can transform the potential for violence into cooperation, as demonstrated by the trend of declining violence in civilized societies [4].

The modern state, with its coercive apparatus (0.7–1.2% of the population [5]), provides multifaceted protection of rights through mechanisms such as the European Court of Human Rights [6], but often violates them due to bureaucratic indifference and elite interests. Natural rights — life, liberty, property, dignity, and security — are inalienable, as substantiated by John Locke [7] and John Finnis [8]. Political ideologies, from liberalism with low risk of violations [9] to totalitarianism with high [10], demonstrate that authoritarian forms are incompatible with human rights. Forms of government such as constitutional monarchy or parliamentary republic can be adapted, but democracy risks the "tyranny of the majority" [11].

Human Rights Policy DAO offers a decentralized alternative, where rules are based on consensus and technology [12], ensuring universal protection without territorial limitations. Education focused on empathy [13] makes this model sustainable. Since traditional structures are insufficient to overcome global crises — where freedom has declined in 60 countries, affecting 40% of the world's population [14] — mass joining the community can radically reduce violations, transforming society into a just one.

The prospects for the ideology of human rights are encouraging but depend on global self-organization and active citizen participation. In 2026, with the growth of technology, DAO can become a mass tool: already now decentralized platforms like Ethereum unite millions of users for collective decisions [15]. Education oriented toward human rights can reduce aggression by 20–30% [13], forming a generation free from false ideological biases. Integration with international institutions, such as the United Nations, can provide legal force, similar to the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by 173 countries [16].

In the postcolonial world, where inequality exacerbates violations [17], DAO offers inclusivity: without leaders, with consensus, it avoids corruption as in state systems [1] and creates a global network where each community member voluntarily contributes to the public good by protecting, monitoring, or providing evidence of violations [18]. If critical mass reaches 10–20% of the population, violations will decrease, as in models of social change [19]. Challenges — resistance from elites and technical barriers — can be overcome through education and alliances with human rights organizations.

The manifesto was created with the deep conviction that human rights are not an abstraction but the foundation of civilization. Observing violations from the earliest civilizations to modern repressions leads to the realization of the need for change. Today, in 2026, the existing system divides society into privileged elites living in luxury and masses in conditions of limited freedom, similar to "soft slavery" through debts and censorship [20]. At the individual level, people often simply do not have time to react due to lack of time and resources [18]. But crisis can become an opportunity: DAO transforms a person from a passive victim into an active agent of change, relying on proven models of collective justice [21].

Dear reader, it is time to act. Join Human Rights Policy DAO: register on the platform humanrightspolicy.org, familiarize yourself with the fundamental human rights using the resource: humanrightspolicy.dao (available via IPFS: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmfZ4Qg1XiR6Y1Lnm4fnykWi6EhpwmkVSzzVNiiQS6YMSF/) and make your contribution to the development of the community. Share evidence of violations; if you are a victim — seek collective protection; if you are a witness — do not remain silent. Education begins with you: teach children the principles of human rights [4]. Every action brings closer a world where rights are inviolable. Do not wait — become part of the change today, because tomorrow may be too late. Together we will build a society where freedom is not a privilege, but the norm.