As our contemporary international order seems to come apart at its seams in the trenches of Eastern Europe, many observers have sought solace in the promises made by the historical crucible in which this order was forged. It was, after all, in the aftermath of a previous global conflagration that a planetary constellation of statespeople attempted to create an architecture that would save `succeeding generations from the scourge of war' under the aegis of the `United Nations Organization' (UNO). In hindsight, it is easy to look at the years that led to the creation of this international institution-and the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UD HR) of 1948, one of its central pillars-as a decisive `Grotian moment,' insofar as it promised a new age for international ordering. And yet, the historical record shows that those contemporary to the making of the UNO and the UDHR were less certain about the `Grotianness' of the moment they were living. In this sense, I argue that the plural legacies of the years 1941-1948 have been contested and disputed from the outset. In this contribution I think with, and perhaps against, the notion of `Grotian moments' to interrogate how a narrative of the UDHR as a watershed period for secularized individual rights came to eclipse another account of the UDHR, which highlighted the centrality of collective welfare for the post-war settlement.
