Thanks for downloading the NRTIME podcast. For more details about NRTIME and for our terms of use, please go to bbc.co.uk forward slash radio for.

I hope you enjoy the program.

Hello, today is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in New York.

And we're going to attempt to discuss that in the context of globalization, cultural rights and rights and responsibilities.

With me to do that is Professor Hermi Baba, who currently holds the chair in English literature and art at Chicago University, as well as being visiting Professor of Humanities at University College London.

Last year, he's book The Location of Culture, which addressed the question of ethnic minorities in the post-colonial world as reissued.

Professor John Gray is Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, and his latest book, Extremely War Received, is called False Dawn, The Delusions of Global Capitalism.

What chair is that universal declaration in 50 years, John Gray?

Well, I think we have to remember it arose from what was the worst violation of human rights this century, namely the genocidal policies of the Nazi regime and emerged from the Second World War.

And in the 50 years since, it's really served as a standard by which governments and other organisations can be judged.

And of course, a lot of the time, they're found wanting.

But I think its significance is that it is a standard to which beleaguered individuals, communities and even people can repair when they are oppressed.

Having said that, I think it's not without its own difficulties and problems.

Not all of the rights which it embodies are, in fact, universally accepted or universally interpreted in the same way.

Well, what actually does democratic representation mean? What does freedom of the press mean?

These are core rights. We all see their immense importance.

But the variation in their meanings can't, I think, be written off just as a way in which backward regimes or backward cultures preserve their own backwardness.

There's some genuine dispute and disagreement about what they mean in different circumstances.

What's your take on this universal declaration? Do you think it's been a practicable vision and aspiration?

Or do you think it's been more violated against than accepted?

Well, I think it really is an aspirational document. And I think that that is what all human rights activists, as well as human rights academics and lawyers acknowledge its aspirational.

I suppose a blunt follow-up to my question, sorry, because just as refined as it has stopped anything happening, has it made the world a better place because it's there?

...