Dear Learned Colleague,

For better or worse, peer pressure is a powerful tool.

That is the kind of tool used in a relatively new UN mechanism called the Universal Periodic Review. Held in Geneva, the forum is meant to bring pressure on nations by other nations. But is it good at advancing genuine human rights like the right to life, or does it promote boutique rights from special interests like those coming from UN expert committees? Dr. Rebecca Oas examines the first ten years of the UPR process and gives you her conclusions.

Sincerely,

Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
Editor

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a relatively new UN human rights mechanism. In its ten-year tenure it has provided a forum for nations to review each other’s human rights records, with input from civil society.  It differs from other committees in the UN human rights system. Rather than relying on outside experts to critique government’s performance, the UPR brings to bear a sort of peer pressure on governments. It encourages them to work harder to protect human rights, offers best practices, and exposes shortcomings.

For contested social issues, including abortion and issues pertaining to sexuality, the UPR’s impact has been mixed.  Because the country reviews are done by other countries, the UPR offers a constantly-evolving picture of the human rights priorities of the global community.  It offers insights as to which issues framed as human rights enjoy universal or near-universal acceptance, and which are more niche concerns.  The UPR both enables and forces a degree of frankness in the global human rights discourse: countries under review must answer recommendations from their peer countries “on the record.” Read More >>>