One of the main differences between duties of justice and duties of humanity has traditionally been taken to be that the first are enforceable, while the second are not. In the context of the current global justice debate, some philosophers have argued against this distinction, claiming that an enforceable duty of humanity is no oxymoron, but rather a necessary moral category when addressing the duties that the global wealthy owe toward the global poor. In this paper, my purpose is to examine what is meant by this claim and in what sense humanity can be said to be ‘enforceable’. I distinguish three different senses of enforceability –legal, social and ‘moral’– and go on to defend the third option over the other two.