“To attack the most vulnerable—babies, children, pregnant women, and those already suffering from illness and disease, and health workers risking their own lives to save lives—is an act of unconscionable cruelty,” says a Joint Statement from UNICEF, UNFPA, and WHO in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine. To monitor human rights abuses such as this and improve human rights conditions around the world, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly established the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2006. The UPR produces purposeful engagement by all 193 UN member states participating in the periodic reviews. Despite the UPR’s potential to advance human rights—and by extension improve human security—this novel human rights mechanism receives little attention among scholars and policymakers. This lack of interest in the UPR needs to change. More research could shed light on its role in improving human rights outcomes in conflict-free countries as well as in countries experiencing conflict like in Ukraine, Syria, and Ethiopia.

The UPR Process

Each nation has a UPR every 4.5 years. It is led by the UPR Working Group comprising the 47 member states of the Human Rights Council. Each state’s review is based on three publicly accessible documents. First is a national report by the state under review. The second is a report submitted by independent human rights experts and groups such as the human rights treaty bodies, special procedures, and other UN bodies. The third document is a report by stakeholders including non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions. During the review, all UN member states can participate by posing questions, issuing recommendations, and providing comments to a given state under review.

After each state’s review, a group of three states (troikas) from the Working Group with support from the state under review and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights prepare an outcome report. This report includes key issues and details the recommendations made to the state under review. States can either support or recommendations provided by other states. By noting recommendations, states signal a lack of commitment to implementing the recommendation. States under review endeavor to provide the required reports and engage in the process by answering outstanding questions. When they are up for review again during the next cycle, they are expected to provide information detailing their progress in implementing these recommendations.

Notable Outcomes from the UPR

In February, 2022, the Council completed the third UPR cycle, meaning that every member state has now had three reviews. Ultimately, this high level of state participation and engagement in the reviews speaks to the importance accorded to the UPR.

In all three cycles, the top two human rights issues obtaining the highest number of recommendations are women’s rights (17,950 recommendations) and children’s rights (16,553 recommendations). Recommendations concerning women’s and children’s rights also have the highest acceptance rates of all other issue areas.

A review of the UPR Info database indicates that in all cycles, states provided a high number (18,241) of recommendations to each other  encouraging the ratification of human rights treaties. This suggests that the UPR complements the work of human rights treaty bodies. Treaty bodies are committees of independent experts who monitor compliance with various international human rights treaties.

Protecting Human Rights Amidst Conflicts

The ongoing war in Ukraine has growing evidence of human rights violations including rape, summary executions, and attacks on health care facilities. This raises the question of how the UPR can make a difference in countries experiencing conflicts.

Evidence suggests that even states experiencing conflicts and political unrest, like Syria and Ethiopia, continue to participate in the review and accept recommendations concerning how conflict-related human rights violations can be resolved. For instance, the prolonged 11-year Syria war has resulted in several notable recommendations. During the first cycle review, Syria accepted recommendations concerning carrying out investigations into human rights abuses since the war began. In response to this recommendation, Syria reported in its second cycle review that it has established a Joint Military Inspection Committee resulting in 282 complaints by 2016. This is a positive outcome since it demonstrates that even amidst conflicts, states strive to implement UPR recommendations. It also suggests the UPR’s potential of addressing human rights violations in countries experiencing conflicts.

Like the case of Syria, the UPR can serve as an avenue to address the devastating human rights violations amidst the ongoing war in Ukraine. During Ukraine’s fourth cycle review scheduled for 2023, states can highlight the human rights abuses in the ongoing war, with the expectation that these issues could be addressed.

Can the UPR Advance Global Human Rights Protection?

While the UPR is an instrument with great potential, the mechanism is not without flaws. At times, political considerations influence the recommendations states provide to one another rather than evidence of human rights abuses. The process also limits a high level of participation by nongovernmental organizations, since they can only submit reports and observe the review process. Only states—not independent experts—can conduct the reviews. These are some of the issues leading human rights advocates to question the effectiveness of the UPR in addressing human rights challenges.

There has not been a systematic assessment of whether the UPR has made improvements in human rights outcomes. Studies and publications concerning its effectiveness have primarily explored the structure of the monitoring mechanism, how states and NGOs participate in the process, and implementation of recommendations. The UPR’s impact on improved human rights outcomes therefore remains largely unknown.  

We need more research to determine whether critics’ concerns have merit or the extent to which UPR is achieving its intended goals. Thirteen years of UPR reviews gives scholars enough foundation for evaluating the effectiveness of this monitoring mechanism vis a vis its impact, if any, on human rights outcomes. Studies by academics, human rights advocates, and public sector agencies might encourage greater attention to the value of the UPR in human rights advancement.