▁that ▁right . ▁However , ▁while ▁the ▁‘ right ▁to ▁dign ity ’ ▁and ▁‘ right ▁to ▁assist ’ ▁are ▁clearly ▁established ▁in ▁international ▁law , ▁the ▁legal ▁basis ▁of ▁a ▁‘ right ▁to ▁assistance ’ ▁is ▁not ▁entirely ▁clear . ▁Furthermore , ▁the ▁right ▁to ▁life ▁with ▁dign ity ▁described ▁in ▁the ▁char ter ▁is ▁int imately ▁linked ▁to ▁social , ▁economic ▁and ▁political ▁rights ▁that ▁are ▁not ▁sufficiently ▁addressed ▁in ▁the ▁char ter . ▁▁ ▁A ▁second ▁criticism ▁has ▁been ▁that ▁S phere ’ s ▁“ one ▁size ▁fits ▁all ” ▁approach ▁prevents ▁human it ari ans ▁from ▁adapt ing ▁to ▁the ▁diverse ▁cultural , ▁political ▁and ▁security ▁context s ▁in ▁which ▁they ▁operate . ▁Med ec ins ▁Sans ▁Front ier es ▁( MS F ), ▁one ▁of ▁the ▁prominent ▁critics ▁of ▁S phere , ▁arg ues ▁that ▁S phere ▁“ t end [ s ] ▁towards ▁being ▁pres cript ive , ▁leaving ▁little ▁room ▁for ▁context ual ▁ad a ption ”, ▁and ▁thus ▁is ▁only ▁useful ▁in ▁an ▁ideal ▁situation . ▁Import antly , ▁a ▁number ▁of ▁French ▁human itar ian ▁ag encies ▁fe ared ▁that ▁don ors ▁would ▁dis bur se ▁fund ing ▁based ▁on ▁ful fill ment ▁of ▁S phere ▁standards , ▁restrict ing ▁the ▁ability ▁of ▁ag encies ▁to ▁demonstrate ▁success ▁in ▁ways ▁that ▁are ▁not ▁open ▁to ▁formal ▁measurement . ▁They ▁felt ▁that ▁the ▁S phere ▁approach ▁would ▁ignore ▁non - quant ifiable ▁aspects ▁of ▁human itar ian ▁action ▁such ▁as ▁solid ar ity ▁and ▁witness