It's impossible to talk about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without mentioning the Holocaust and all the other nasty human rights violations that happened throughout the 20th century.
And, frankly, the tyranny and other nasty human rights violations that have happened thus far in the 21st century.
When Eleanor Roosevelt spoke in Paris in 1948, she believed the best way to protect future populations from genocide and famine was to create an official document condemning tyranny and laying out the basic freedoms all people should have.
That's what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did. However, the broad nature of the articles left some of it open to interpretation, and since it wasn't actually international law, some bad stuff continued to slip through the cracks. That's why the conflict between freedom and tyranny is something you Shmoopers are pretty familiar with today, despite Roosevelt's best efforts to put an end to it.
Questions About Freedom and Tyranny
- What does it mean to be free? Did the Universal Declaration of Human Rights change your definition of freedom? Why or why not?
- Do you see tyranny in the world today? Does that affect your opinion on the legacy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
- Is it possible for freedom and tyranny to exist together? In what way?
- In line 50, Eleanor Roosevelt acknowledges that "the flagrant violation of human rights by the Nazis" was the impetus for creating the declaration. Do you believe such a document was inevitable? Why or why not?
Chew on This
Despite all that happened in the 20th century, oppressive governments still exist around the world today. Freedom cannot exist in those places under any kind of tyranny, even with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has heavily influenced other international laws, it remains to this day only a basic principle of human rights. Without any legal obligation attached, the declaration is not as effective as it could be.