Universal Periodic Review and Policy Change: The Case of National Human Rights Institutions

Abstract

National human rights institutions have become a salient feature of national and global human rights architecture. Although scholars have paid much attention to their general relationship with the United Nations, it is surprising that very little has been written on how this has reflected in the Universal Periodic Review as the UN’s only peer-review human rights mechanism. This article aims to contribute to filling this gap. Firstly, the article presents original data on the frequency and regional distribution of national human rights institutions’ participation in the first two Universal Periodic Review cycles. Besides reporting, the author identifies a plethora of other entry points and offers recommendations on how national human rights institutions can maximize their impact on the Universal Periodic Review outcome. Secondly, this article explores if national human rights institutions have been the objects of Universal Periodic Review recommendations. Have the Member States advocated for the establishment and strengthening of national human rights institutions through the Universal Periodic Review or not? Have national human rights institutions been high on Member States’ (foreign) policy agendas? How have the States under Review responded to recommendations to establish national human rights institutions? The implications of these empirical questions are discussed in the context of human rights compliance and norm diffusion literature. The article argues that while having some features of ‘rights ritualism’, the insistently cooperative and inclusive character of the Universal Periodic Review facilitates a genuine discussion of existing human rights situations. This has a real potential to lead to human rights policy changes over time through the process of acculturation, which is demonstrated with the example of national human rights institutions-related Universal Periodic Review recommendations.