What conclusions can we draw about the overall bona fides of the UPR? Where does this all fit in, given the human rights fault lines cited at the beginning of this paper? Is the UPR’s overtly non-coercive nature actually a catalyst for gradual improvements, and thus a mean-ingful process? Or is it an »emperor wears no clothes«
farce, in which there are no consequences for nations with poor human rights regimes?
We suggest that there is some utility to the UPR. In con-trast to other functions of the HRC and the UN General Assembly where regional affiliations and loyalties »lock-in« North-South conflict, the UPR recommendations pro-cess emphasizes bilateral, state-to-state relations. States have greater freedom to make UPR-related decisions and act apart from regional affiliation. A successful UPR process can serve as an example to create new and po-tentially more positive dynamics of interaction between states in the UN system.
There is some differentiation that has occurred as a result of political reform around the world; for example some of the East European countries demonstrate approaches that are similar to those reflected in WEOG. And a few of the more democratic African states such as Zambia, Mau-ritius, Senegal and Botswana do not march in lockstep with the regional grouping. GRULAC’s profile is much different than it would have been before widespread democratization took place on that continent.
Peer reviews embody a consensual approach, slowly chipping away at the national sovereignty argument. In light of this, one way to perceive of the UPR is that of a potential Trojan Horse: Under the guise of a voluntary
mechanism, it makes it more legitimate for states, es-pecially the more democratic ones, to push for change in the human rights situations in other countries. In the current international environment states want to »look good« and to at least appear to be respecting human rights. This has a creeping effect of enmeshing them in the spider web of international norms and rules regard-ing promotion of human rights.
The UPR is resulting in a subtle diminishment of the na-tional sovereignty concept through evolutionary rather than revolutionary means (given the consensual nature of the UN HRC and UPR, the latter probably wouldn’t work).
Moravchik has suggested, for example, that newly demo-cratic states may consciously and willingly promote some loss of their sovereignty in exchange for the reassurance of helping to »lock-in« their new democratic constitu-tional order by creating an internaconstitu-tional line of defense against the enemies of democracy.36 The Inter-American Democratic Charter is a prime example of this, in that states explicitly give the Organization of American States the ability to intervene should democratic processes be undermined by autocratic leaders.37 The African Union’s prohibition on membership of regimes that have come to power by military coups d’état, and the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance also reflect this approach. These requirement are by no means per-fect as evidenced by debates within the European Union regarding some aspirant and current certain member states’ questionable adherence to democratic principles.
Defining the requirements and enforcing them can be difficult. Overall, however, they reflect a direction in which international human rights protection has been headed.
The UPR provides an opportunity for states to pose se-rious and sometimes delicate questions about human rights that may not have been previously aired in other human rights mechanisms. The UPR is the first United Na-tions initiative to assess the whole range of human rights – civil, political, economic, social and cultural – in one review. A credible hypothesis is that increased respect for human rights does take time, but that it can happen – much, after all, has been accomplished since the
incep-36. Andrew Moravcsik, the Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe, International Organization, 2000, vol. 54
#22, 35.
37. See http://www.oas.org/OASpage/eng/Documents/Democractic_
Charter.htm for a full text of the Charter.
tion of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Therefore, the reader can conclude that the UPR is a process worth supporting and strengthening.
One last point should be made about the role of civil society in the UPR process. There are challenges, includ-ing the inherently political nature of the UPR, which limit the scope of reforms that could strengthen the UPR.
There are only limited formal opportunities for CSO engagement. In addition, there is a continuing lack of knowledge amongst CSOs about the UN Human Rights system, including the UPR. Civil society engagement, nonetheless, can result in sustained emphasis and atten-tion regarding the extent to which governments comply with recommendations that they have accepted. The UPR can provide valuable cover to CSOs domestically. The UPR process enables them to bring up issues that the govern-ment would otherwise often have preferred to ignore or suppress. A key to enhancing effective engagement in the UPR process is the development of a coordinated strategic CSO coalition. This results in the provision of expertise in the scope and nature of recommendations. It also validates and renders more credible the UPR process;
it is not seen as simply as a state-centric process. Finally, it can result in a long-term focus on follow-up of UPR recommendations. The UPR provides an opportunity to reinforce other human rights mechanisms and vice versa;
for example, UPR reviews are based in part on informa-tion provided by treaty bodies. Many CSOs have been able to use UPR recommendations in their engagement with treaty bodies and special procedures.
We conclude that the UPR has some substantive merit.
Furthermore, as an example of a globally-centered human rights initiative which is also voluntary in nature, the UPR fits into the evolving perception that there is common ground to be found in the universal rights versus cultural relativity and national sovereignty divides, and is there-fore worthy of further study and policy focus. There is a clear correlation between state adherence to democratic values and functions, and a more robust utilization of the UPR. Should the Huntingtonian »Third Wave« expan-sion of democratic values continue, we would be likely to see more robust use made of the UPR. And whether or not the expansion continues, it is unlikely to recede significantly. And if it does, mechanisms such as the UPR, where precedents have been established regarding the legitimacy of examination of state human rights records by the international community, could become even
more important. The UPR is representative of a changing global landscape, in which universal human rights norms are gaining more traction, and bring to mind Martin Lu-ther King Jr.’s famous maxim that »the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice«.
Afshari, Reza (2015). »Relativity in Universality: Jack Donnelly’s Grand Theory in Need of Specific Illustrations«, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 37, #4.
Bossuyt, Marc (2006). »The New Human Rights Council: A First Appraisal«, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol. 24, no. 4.
Buber, Martin (1950). Paths in Utopia. (Syracuse University Press, Syracuse).
Charlesworth, Hilary and Larking, Emma eds. (2015). Human Rights and the Universal Periodic Review: Rituals and Ritualism. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Fletcher, Mary (2012). Bahrain Coordinating Committee, Blogpost: UNHRC President Lasserre Puts Kingdom of Bah-rain on Notice do not Threaten Activists (26 May 2012), available at https://bahBah-raincoordinatingcommittee.wordpress.
com/2012/05/26/unhrc-president-lasserre-puts-kingdom-of-bahrain-on-notice-do-not-threaten-activists/.
Flockhart, Trine (2005). Socializing Democratic Norms: The Role of International Organizations for the Construction of Europe. (Palgrave Macmillan, New York).
Hannum, Hurst (2015). Review of Posner, Eric, The Twilight of Human Rights Law, (Oxford University Press), in Human Rights Quarterly, v. 37, #4.
Hickey, Emma (2013). »The UN’s Universal Periodic Review: Is it Adding Value and Improving the Human Rights Situ-ation on the Ground? A Critical EvaluSitu-ation of the First Cycle and RecommendSitu-ations for Reform«, Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law, https://www.icl-journal.com/download/a671e91c60a30231e1067f41ba849986/
ICL_Thesis_Vol_7_4_13.pdf.
Hopgood, Stephen (2013). The Endtimes of Human Rights, (Cornell University Press, New York).
Institute for Systemic Peace (2015). Polity IV database http://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html.
Kinley, David (2010). »Bendable Rules: The Development Implications of Human Rights Pluralism, Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper, #10/104, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1695304.
McMahon, E, Pescatore, M., Hanish, R. and Carr, F (2013). »UPR: Do Civil Society Organization-Suggested Recom-mendations Matter?« Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Geneva, http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/10343.pdf.
McMahon, Edward (2012). »The Universal Periodic Review: A Work in Progress«. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Geneva, http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/genf/09297.pdf and www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/Database_Action_Category.pdf.
Moravcsik, Andrew (2000). »The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe«, International Organization 54(2), 35.
Moss, Lawrence (2010). »Opportunities for Nongovernmental Organization Advocacy in the Universal Periodic Review Process at the UN Human Rights Council«, Journal of Human Rights Practice, vol. 2, #1.
Organization of American State (2001). The Inter-American Democratic Charter. http://www.oas.org/charter/docs/
resolution1_en_p4.htm.
Pevehouse, Jon C. (2005). Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization, (Cambridge University Press, New York).
Posner, Eric (2014). The Twilight of Human Rights Law, (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
Roth, Kenneth (2014). »Have Human Rights Treaties Failed?« New York Times, December 28, 2014 at http://www.
nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/28/have-human-rights-treaties-failed.
Sen, Purna, ed. (2010). »Two Years of Universal Periodic Review: Lessons, Hopes and Expectations«, (Commonwealth Secretariat, London).
United Nations 2007. »Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council«, (A/HRC/5/21).
UPR Info (2014). »Beyond Promises: The Impact of UPR on the Ground«, UPR Info, Geneva, 2014. http://www.upr-info.
org/sites/default/files/general-document/pdf/2014_beyond_promises.pdf.
Valentino, Benjamin (2011). The True Costs of Humanitarian Intervention, Foreign Affairs, vol. 90, #6.
Walling, Carrie Booth (2015). »Human Rights Norms, State Sovereignty, and Humanitarian Intervention«, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 37, #2.
The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Responsible:
Hubert René Schillinger | Director, FES Geneva Phone: +41-22-733-3450 / Fax: +41-22-733-3545 http://www.fes-geneva.org
To order publications:
Commercial use of all media published by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) is not permitted without the written consent of the FES.
Dialogue on Globalization
As part of the international work of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Dialogue on Globalization contributes worldwide to the debate on globalization and global governance. It is based on the premise that – through an inclusive and responsive global policy approach – globalization can be shaped into a direction that promotes peace, democracy and social justice. The program draws intensively on the international network of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) – a German non-profit institution committed to the principles of social de-mocracy with offices, programs and partners in more than 100 countries. The program is coordinated by the head office in Berlin and by the FES offices in New York and Geneva.
The FES office in Geneva serves as a liaison office between UN agencies, other Geneva-based international organizations and FES field offices as well as partners in developing countries to strengthen the voice of the Global South. It contributes to the debates in »Inter-national Geneva« on trade and sustainable development, decent work and social policies, human rights, economic and social rights in particular, as well as on peace and security.
ISBN
978-3-95861-584-7