The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights Prevention, Mitigation, Remedies and Redress

Robin Ramcharan — Routledge, 2025

This book systematically documents the practice of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) on the protection of human rights. It takes note of the AICHR's engagement with the Universal Periodic Review. Overall, it provides a template of universal standards, spanning prevention, response and mitigation, and redress and remedies, from which to gauge the performance of the AICHR. The evidence points to a Commission that leaves much to be desired and whose protective function needs significant improvement. Nevertheless, the National Representatives of Member States to the AICHR have taken important and positive steps that lay the groundwork for a more protection-oriented Commission. The work offers avenues for the National Representatives, the ASEAN Member States and civil society to enhance the protection function of the AICHR and to thus more closely align it with hard-won international standards and best practices. The book will be of interest to representatives of the AICHR, human rights practitioners, ASEAN policymakers, and academics, students, researchers and policymakers in the areas of international relations, human rights law and Asian studies.

National Human Rights Protection Systems in Asia and the Pacific

Robin Ramcharan — Brill, 2023

This chapter explores the development of national human rights protection systems across all of the countries of Asia and the Pacific in accordance with international human rights standards. It is based on documents emanating from the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council.

Empowering Civil Society Organisations at the UPR - Strengthening Implementation of Recommendations from the UN's Universal Periodic Review

Alice Storey & Melisa Oleschuk — Funded by the British Academy and Leverhulme Trust, 2024

The aim of this study is to empower civil society organisations when engaging with the UPR, in turn strengthening the domestic implementation of UPR recommendations. Using an online survey and semi-structured interviews, a significant dataset has been created, detailing experiences of civil society organisations (CSOs) that take part in the UPR. This novel work is important because CSOs play a substantial role in advocating for human rights and holding governments to account, particularly through the UPR. By understanding their experiences of engaging with the UPR process, challenges can be identified alongside opportunities for improvement. Empowering these organisations can lead to more effective monitoring and implementation of UPR recommendations at the national level, which will improve human rights on the ground. Ultimately, this study aims to contribute to a more transparent, accountable, and inclusive human rights system that benefits individuals and communities worldwide.

Opting Out of Accountability: The United States and the Implications of Withdrawal from the Universal Periodic Review

Michael Lane and Alice Storey — EJIL:Talk!, 2025

On 28th August 2025, the United States of America (USA) took the step of withdrawing from the UN’s human rights monitoring process, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The peer review process, through which states evaluate one another’s human rights records, has seen near-universal engagement since the first UPR cycle commenced in 2008. The USA’s decision to withdraw, however, undermines this foundational universality and stymies both domestic and international accountability efforts. In this piece, we argue that the USA’s withdrawal from the UPR is (1) an unprecedented step that risks contributing to further regression in global human rights protections, and (2) supresses civil society organisations’ (CSOs) ability to hold the USA to account both domestically and internationally.

Transparency, accountability, and legitimacy within the UN Universal Periodic Review

Alice Storey and Mark Eccleston-Turner — Rutgers University Press, 2022

This chapter critically analyses the transparency surrounding the OHCHR’s decision-making role in the UPR. In particular, it focuses on how the OHCHR compiles two of the key UPR reports for each Member State UPR, identifying that this process is significantly lacking in transparency. The first case study was a review of the United States of America’s (USA) UPRs in the context of the abolition of capital punishment. The second case study examined the role of the UPR in improving access to HIV-medication in the top five HIV-prevalent States: eSwatini (formerly Swaziland), Lesotho, Botswana, South Africa, and Namibia. This chapter uses the two reports compiled by the OHCHR in the six countries’ UPRs to the end of 2018 in order to suggest ways in which the compilation of the reports could be more transparent. By making the OHCHR’s role within the UPR clearer, this will legitimise its role within the global human rights framework. In turn, it will allow the OHCHR to be a prominent body for furthering human rights across the world through the UPR and beyond, thus minimising the risk of populist States failing to engage with the UPR.

The United Nations' Universal Periodic Review and female genital mutilation in Somalia: The value of civil society recommendations

Alice Storey — African Human Rights Law Journal, 2025

Female genital mutilation is a violation of international human rights law and a public health concern. The Federal Republic of Somalia has the highest prevalence of FGM across the world, with an estimated 97 to 99 per cent of women and girls having undergone FGM. Worldwide, various strategies are being implemented seeking to eliminate FGM, including criminalisation, further education, and involvement of civil society organisations. The role of CSOs, through the United Nations' Universal Periodic Review mechanism, is the key focus of this article. Somalia's three UPR cycles to date are analysed, identifying (i) how frequently member states and CSOs recommend on similar themes; and (ii) whether CSOs' and/or member states' recommendations on FGM are sufficiently formulated to aid implementation by Somalia. Following this analysis, I argue that CSO recommendations do hold some value for member states, but to achieve success in the context of eradicating FGM in Somalia, improvements must be made by both CSOs submitting stakeholder reports with recommendations included, and member states making recommendations within the UPR. Specific proposals are made, which could be utilised by CSOs and member states when preparing for Somalia's fourth cycle review scheduled for 2026.

Improving Recommendations from the UN's Universal Periodic Review: A Case Study on Domestic Abuse in the UK

Alice Storey — Pace International Law Review, 2023

Hailed as an international human rights innovation, the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) is a peer-review mechanism that assesses the protection and promotion of human rights in all 193 UN Member States, including intergovernmental and civil society input. Importantly, within the UPR, other Member States provide recommendations to each state under review on how it can improve human rights on the ground. States can decide to accept or note recommendations and should then go on to implement those that are accepted. The recommendations are a fundamental part of the UPR process, yet they are not always formulated in a way that leads to positive change. Using the case study of domestic abuse in the UK, this article seeks to add to the current literature through an analysis of the formulation of UPR recommendations, providing five practical suggestions for how recommendations can be improved to ensure action is taken on the ground: (1) use consistent terminology, (2) be specific when discussion aspects of violence against women and girls, (3) UPR recommendations should be fluid and adapt to the changing human rights landscape, (4) utilize recommendations provided by civil society organizations in their stakeholder submissions, and (5) consider applying an intersectional approach when making recommendations.

Challenges and Opportunities for the United Nations' Universal Periodic Review: A Case Study on Capital Punishment in the United States

Alice Storey — UMKC Law Review, 2021

In 2005, former-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan voiced his utopian ambition for the newly created UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to have an explicitly defined function as a chamber of peer review to evaluate the fulfilment by all States of all their human rights obligations. This dream was realized through the creation of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR is a peer-review mechanism of the UN Human Rights Council, which--through facilitating intergovernmental and civil society input--reviews all 193 UN Member States' protection and promotion of human rights. Each review is recorded in publicly available documentation. The UPR has achieved success in attracting 100% cooperation from Member States, but there is limited knowledge concerning strategies for enhancing the UPR's operation. The USA is a leader in the international community, but it is also subject to criticism about its promotion and protection of international human rights standards. This is particularly the case with regards to the USA's continued use of the death penalty, an issue that has featured significantly in the USA's two UPRs to date. Using three broad themes extrapolated from an analysis of the USA's UPR documentation on the question of capital punishment, namely, (1) the right to a fair trial; (2) mental illness exemptions; and (3) the implementation of a death sentence, this article identifies challenges currently facing the UPR mechanism and articulates evidence-based proposals to improve its operation. These proposals include, (1) increasing transparency; (2) adjusting the approach to advance questions; (3) improving the recommendations made by Member States; and (4) increasing the tracking of the implementation of recommendations. It concludes with suggestions for, first, how the proposals suggested might be implemented, and, second, ideas for future areas of research that could contribute to supporting the UPR to fulfil its mandate to promote and protect human rights globally.

Human Rights and the UN Universal Periodic Review Mechanism A Research Companion

Damian Etone, Amna Nazir & Alice Storey — Routledge, 2024

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a peer-review mechanism, reviewing all 193 UN Member States’ protection and promotion of human rights. After ten years of the existence of the UPR mechanism, this collection examines the effectiveness of the UPR, theoretical and conceptual debates about its modus operandi, and the lessons that can be drawn across different regions/states to identify possible improvements. The book argues that despite its limitations, the UPR mechanism with its inclusive, cooperative, and collaborative framework, is an important human rights mechanism with the potential to evolve over time into an effective cooperative tool for monitoring human rights implementation. Divided into three parts, the first part focuses on exploring a variety of theoretical approaches to understanding the UPR mechanism. The second part examines specific human rights themes and the relationship between the UPR mechanism and other international mechanisms. Finally, the third part questions implementation and the ways in which states/regional groupings have engaged with the UPR mechanism and what lessons can be learned for the future. The volume will be a valuable resource for researchers, academics, and policymakers working in the area of international human rights law, international organizations, and international relations. We would like to acknowledge the UPR Academic Network (UPRAN) for bringing together the experts on this project and the University of Stirling for providing funds to facilitate open access dissemination for parts of this output.

Unpacking the Relationship Between State and NGO Recommendations in the UPR Process: Potential for Influence or Alignment?

Damian Etone, Emilia Vassiliades — African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2026

A substantial number of scholarly works have examined the role of NGOs in various international human rights mechanisms, including the treaty bodies and, to a limited extent, the UN Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review (UPR). This literature primarily focuses on NGO reporting and advocacy strategies to effectively engage with these international human rights mechanisms and influence their outcomes. Within the UPR context, recommendations for effective NGO engagement include forming coalitions, conducting advocacy and media campaigns, and participating in pre-session events in Geneva to shape the review process. However, the alignment between NGO recommendations in UPR reports and state recommendations remains underexplored in scholarly discourse. This gap is significant, as the UPR requires states to respond only to peer recommendations, not those from NGOs. The degree of alignment between state and NGO recommendations serves as a critical indicator of the relevance of state recommendations and their capacity to reflect the human rights priorities identified by NGOs. Focusing on Kenya and Zambia, this article investigates the extent to which NGO recommendations in UPR reports align with state recommendations. Findings reveal alignment between NGO and state recommendations, though the strength of this alignment – both in thematic focus and recommendation quality – varies based on the nature of NGO advocacy strategies. Understanding areas of convergence and divergence, as well as their underlying factors, can enhance the UPR's impact on domestic human rights. Given that states respond only to peer recommendations, examining the relationship between state and NGO recommendations is essential to assess whether state recommendations reflect the priorities and quality of those advanced by NGOs. In response to the question whether NGO recommendations matter in the UPR process, our article answers in the affirmative.

The Significance of the UPR in the Absence of a Regional Human Rights System: The Case of the Asia Pacific

Fiona McGaughey, Amy Maguire, Natalie Baird, James Gomez, Romulo Nayacalevu — Human Rights and the UN Universal Periodic Review Mechanism A Research Companion, 2024

HOW THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW PROCESS HAS INFLUENCED THE CASE FOR NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS IN PACIFIC ISLAND FORUM (PIF) MEMBER STATES

Nayacalevu Romulo — Journal of South Pacific Law, 2017

Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review as a Forum of Fighting for Borderline Recommendations? Lessons Learned from the Ground

Kazuo Fukuda — Northwestern Journal of Human Rights, 2022

Highly acclaimed as a key innovation of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was created in 2006 as a cooperative, peer-review mechanism to shift away from the highly politicized Commission on Human Rights. Despite the significance and hope attached to the UPR, it has been conspicuously under-examined in the U.S. legal scholarship. And most relevant literature elsewhere has avoided directly addressing the fundamental question of exactly what the UPR’s added value is to the global human rights regime in terms of its direct contribution to improving human rights situations on the ground. This is mainly due to methodological and analytical challenges to measure the impact of the UPR in isolation from other existing human rights mechanisms. While acknowledging such challenges, this article attempts to provide one such answer to the question from a normative perspective: it argues that the UPR’s added value lies in providing a forum to incrementally and constantly challenge the threshold of states under review for accepting their commitment to addressing controversial human rights issues. Drawing from the experiences of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and other countries as well as the literature on peer pressure and acculturation, this article articulates the current issues of the UPR mechanism in terms of recommendations given to states under review by their peers and suggests the way forward for the UPR mechanism by reframing it as a forum of fighting for borderline recommendations.

Theoretical challenges to understanding the potential impact of the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism: Revisiting theoretical approaches to state human rights compliance

Damian Etone — Journal of Human Rights, 2019