Human Rights and the Universal Periodic Review: Rituals and Ritualism ed. by Hilary Charlesworth & Emma Larking (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Human Rights and the Universal Periodic Review: Rituals and Ritualism ed. by Hilary Charlesworth & Emma Larking Edward McMahon (bio) Human Rights and the Universal Periodic Review: Rituals and Ritualism ( Hilary Charlesworth & Emma Larking eds., Cambridge University Press, 2014), 314 pages, ISBN 978-1-107-08630-2. I. INTRODUCTION In recent years it has become de rigueur to associate human rights with universal values. This, however, masks the reality that the devil is in the details in defining such hot-button terms as universality and human rights, and determining how the latter can best be supported. It is, nonetheless, possible to map an emerging continuum of actions the international community can take to promote universal human rights norms of conduct. In descending order of magnitude of intervention these can include a) the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine relating [End Page 249] to humanitarian intervention; b) targeted sanctions; c) naming and shaming; and d) international organization norm-setting, including peer reviews. Peer reviews consist of member states assessing the performance of each other according to a commonly defined set of criteria. This process is increasingly being used by international organizations and includes such initiatives as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Peer Review, the African Peer Review Mechanism, and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process of the UN Human Rights Council. Certainly in comparison to R2P, peer reviews contain much lower costs for all concerned. Human rights-related peer reviews are designed to be a regular part of state-to-state interactions and generally deal more with the “lesser” sins of autocratic rule and lower level human rights violations. For a variety of reasons, R2P is best left sheathed to the maximum extent possible.1 By contrast, peer reviews represent a more user-friendly methodology. Both risks and short-term rewards are of a lesser magnitude. However, if properly used, peer reviews can have a prophylactic effect. Peer review mechanisms can expand international human rights and democracy norms by mainstreaming them. They have the potential to enmesh states within the spider web dynamic of heightened respect for universal human rights norms and reduce the number of future instances requiring higher cost interventions. Peer reviews are voluntary in that governments agree to participate in them. They scrutinize the domestic affairs of states, blunting the traditional concept of sovereign independence; by having made the decision to be part of them, governments have agreed to open matters in their countries to international scrutiny.2 Governments are increasingly coming under pressure from international financial institutions, international organizations, fellow governments, and domestic public opinion to participate in peer reviews. Standing aloof now carries a stigma that governments have something to hide or are otherwise seeking to keep authoritarian tendencies from public view. This can have deleterious effects on aid, trade, and other aspects of bilateral and multilateral relations. Peer reviews can also empower domestic voices in favor of human rights promotion and protection by providing tangible evidence of the interest of the international community in these issues, and, by spotlighting these human rights defenders, provide a protective shield for their activities.3 They pose the possibility to, over time, shift the debate and create a “new normal” in terms of international standards of domestic political behavior. International organization peer review mechanisms are by definition creations of the member states of the organization undertaking them. They thus have in common a tendency to be the products of a lowest-common-denominator consensus decision-making process. This in turn means that they almost invariably rely more on the carrot of positive reinforcements and inducements rather than the [End Page 250] stick of punitive measures. Due to their voluntary nature, peer reviews can thus fail to achieve meaningful goals while providing the appearance of action, reflecting an “emperor wears no clothes” scenario. II. RITUAL, RITUALISM, AND THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW It is against this ambiguous backdrop that Hilary Charlesworth and Emma Larking provide an edited collection of papers considering the UPR, which began functioning in 2008.4 The UPR is a process operating in four and a half year cycles; each year the human rights performances of forty-two UN member states are examined by...