Seventy-six years ago today, on December 10, 1948, the United Nations said, “Hey, maybe we should agree that people have, you know, rights.” And thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was born—a beautifully idealistic document that proclaimed every human being has dignity, worth, and a right to things like life, liberty, and not getting shoved into prison for looking at a king the wrong way.
Then, thirty-six years later, on December 10, 1984, the UN followed it up with the Convention Against Torture, which basically said, “Hey, let’s also agree not to waterboard people or pull out their fingernails, no matter how bad their Spotify playlists are.” Together, these two documents represented the world collectively saying: “We’re trying to be better than history suggests we are.”
But like any group project, not everyone agreed, and some nations have spent decades pretending they lost the syllabus.
The Birth of Human Rights: “It’s Cute You Think This Will Work”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came out of a very awkward moment in history—World War II. You remember that one, right? The whole world teamed up to fight Nazis, only to realize afterward, “Wow, we should probably make some rules about not committing genocide or enslaving people. Oops!”
Led by Eleanor Roosevelt, who was the Beyoncé of post-war human rights, the drafting committee put together a document declaring things like “no more slavery,” “no more arbitrary arrests,” and “hey, women should probably count as humans too.” It was a mix of bold moral declarations and what should have been the bare minimum.
But of course, nothing about humanity is simple. The Soviet Union abstained from voting because they were mad it didn’t include more about economic rights. South Africa abstained because they were busy doing apartheid. And Saudi Arabia? Let’s just say they weren’t super thrilled about the whole “equal rights for women” bit.
Despite all that, the declaration passed. And while it wasn’t legally binding, it set the tone for modern international law. Think of it like the first draft of a group chat agreement: not everyone follows the rules, but at least now we can point to them when someone’s being a jerk.
Torture: A Surprisingly Controversial Thing to Ban
Fast forward to December 10, 1984, when the UN decided to tackle something so vile, so universally despised, you’d think it wouldn’t require a treaty: torture. Turns out, it did.
The Convention Against Torture was the world’s way of saying, “Hey, we’ve all seen enough spy movies to know this is not okay.” The convention required countries to outlaw torture, investigate allegations, and hold torturers accountable. It also said you can’t send people back to places where they’ll be tortured, no matter how badly you want to get rid of them.
But once again, resistance was fierce. Many authoritarian regimes weren’t thrilled about losing their go-to tool for suppressing dissent. And even some democracies got a little cagey about signing on, because, well, you never know when you might want to “extract” some information. (Looking at you, certain U.S. administrations…)
The convention passed, but enforcing it? That’s been a mixed bag. Some countries ratified it and said, “We’re serious about this,” while others ratified it and immediately started playing legal gymnastics with the definition of “torture.” Enhanced interrogation, anyone?
The Ramifications
These two milestones—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention Against Torture—reshaped the moral and legal landscape of the modern world. They inspired the creation of the International Criminal Court, fueled the rise of organizations like Amnesty International, and gave human rights activists everywhere a legal framework to point to when calling out abuses.
But let’s be honest—these agreements also revealed a lot about humanity’s ability to say one thing and do another. The Universal Declaration said everyone has the right to asylum, but have you seen how refugees are treated? And the Convention Against Torture? Well, the fact that waterboarding is still debated as “not technically torture” kind of sums up how that’s going.
December 2024: The Return of Fascism (Cool!)
Now here we are in 2024, a time when nationalism and authoritarianism are back in vogue like some sort of dystopian ‘80s reboot. Leaders across the globe are saying, “What if we just… stopped caring about human rights?” And people are eating it up like it’s pumpkin spice season.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention Against Torture were supposed to be the ultimate moral compass. But instead of pointing north, the compass is spinning wildly while leaders like Viktor Orbán, Vladimir Putin, and a handful of others decide human dignity is negotiable.
And let’s not forget the U.S., where debates about torture, indefinite detention, and refugee bans continue to test the limits of these once-revolutionary ideas. It’s like we took the moral high ground and decided it needed a little razing for better real estate development.
Why This Still Matters
These documents are unfinished business. They’re reminders that progress isn’t a straight line—it’s more of a messy, awkward dance where someone’s always stepping on someone else’s toes. But they also prove that humanity can agree on basic principles. Even if we don’t always live up to them, having them written down gives us something to strive for.
As we head into 2025, the question isn’t whether these agreements still matter—they do. The question is whether we’ll have the courage to defend them. Will we double down on the idea that human rights are universal? Or will we let the rise of authoritarianism rewrite the rules in favor of fear and control?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention Against Torture aren’t perfect, but they’re a start. And in a world that sometimes feels like it’s losing its moral center, they’re a reminder that we’ve done better before. We can do it again.
But first, maybe we need to re-read those group chat rules and agree to stop being jerks.
