The new nation-states argue that global parameters should not be only parameters to define human rights, as the local or regional value and norms were different in beliefs and circumstances. This view is juxtaposed to the title of "Universal" as defined by Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations long back in 1948. There are three major grounds for the demonstrative denouncement of the universal values of human rights - it's a product of western philosophy, American Exceptionalism in its interpretation and an instrument of Eurocentric conception to justify cultural imperialism. This panel intends to sort out three major dichotomies; universalism versus relativism, universality vs. just international order and universality vs. universalizability of human rights. Through the empirical evidences of nature of human rights violations and working of human rights institutions particularly in the third world countries, it will find out the contrast of two situations - how political economy of human rights discourse have created collective identity and social meanings juxtaposed to which human rights has been a framework of cultural survival at the local levels. Secondly, how the international human rights have become the vanguard in the global consolidation and naturalization of neo-liberalism process. Finally, to debate on the alternative to the idea of universal human rights in the contemporary society.