The minimalist critique of human rights advanced by legal historian Samuel Moyn argues that human rights are ineffective in addressing material inequality because, rather than striving for equality, they focus on ensuring sufficient protection levels. This article analyses the right to education model which international human rights bodies have expanded to demonstrate the overstretched nature of the minimalist critique. By examining how the right to education provisions of international human rights treaties are interpreted by various United Nations human rights mechanisms, the article argues that the international human rights system has advanced a model of right to education that reaches beyond the notion of sufficiency. The works of these bodies are analysed in light of the privatisation of education. In defining the connection between the equality and liberty dimensions of the right to education, international human rights bodies have prioratised ensuring equal opportunities over the liberty to private education. The aim of the right to education is not merely to provide basic literacy to the poor but also to assure equal educational opportunities to all.

法律历史学家塞缪尔·莫恩 (Samuel Moyn) 提出的对人权的极简主义批评认为，人权在解决物质不平等方面是无效的，因为它们不是争取平等，而是专注于确保足够的保护水平。本文分析了国际人权机构扩展的受教育权模式，以证明极简主义批评的过度扩张性质。本文通过考察联合国各人权机制如何解释国际人权条约的受教育权条款，认为国际人权体系已经提出了一种超越自足概念的受教育权模式。这些机构的工作是根据教育私有化进行分析的。在界定受教育权的平等和自由层面之间的联系时，国际人权机构已将确保平等机会优先于私立教育的自由。受教育权的目标不仅是为穷人提供基本的识字能力，而且是确保所有人享有平等的教育机会。