Human rights promotion, contestation, and politicisationin international human rights institutions:a study of the Universal Periodic Review 2008-2016

Abstract

Operating under the auspices of the UN Human Rights Council, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is an unprecedented peer-review process in which states make recommendations to each other with regards to the human rights situation under their jurisdiction. In light of allegations of politicisation in the UPR, I develop a framework to provide some conceptual and methodological clarity around the concept of “politicisation” and how to observe it with the purpose of evaluating these claims which can be decisive for their effectiveness and survival of human rights institutions – it was that very same criticism that tainted the work of the now defunct UN Commission on Human Right and ultimately brought it down at the beginning of this century. This thesis focuses on studying the behaviour of recommending states in the UPR during the first two cycles (2008-2016). Using quantitative text analysis, network analysis, and interviews, the thesis explores questions on promotion and contestation of human rights in international institutions, as well as to what extent recommending states’ behaviour constitute an instrumental or normative use of the UPR. In addition, this research advances and assess the relevance of an original measure of the human rights identity of states, and finds that it plays a significant role in the human rights promotion, contestation, and politicisation that takes place in the UPR interactive dialogue.