Abstract
ABSTRACTWhile the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has been in place for more than ten years, a comprehensive assessment of its effectiveness remains a daunting enterprise. I maintain that this is not just because of the size of the process, but because of how the UPR was structured during its creation. In order to better understand the circumstances that led to this situation, and to inform perspectives for future improvement, I examine how discourse presenting law and politics as two separate objects, and understanding the UPR as an exclusively political mechanism, played a central role in the creation of the UPR and contributed to the UPR having narrowly defined follow-up modalities which are starting to lead to uncertainties about its credibility and effectiveness. I challenge the separability thesis by providing examples of how in the UPR it is possible to observe the fluid border between law and politics. In particular, I expand the discussion on how some UPR recommendations can be seen as evidence of opinio juris by taking a closer look at the role of recommending states. Finally, I argue in favour of a wider and interdisciplinary approach in understanding the UPR outcome and follow-up.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
