How can we promote the universality of human rights?

On this Human Rights Day, we commemorate the 10th of December 1948, when the UN General Assembly adopted
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). We stress, year after year, the universality of human rights. How can we strengthen our efforts, close the gap and leave no one behind?

The Human Rights Council (HRC) is one of the Charter Bodies assessing the ‘fulfilment by all states of all their human rights obligations’.[1] To monitor member states’ performance towards human rights without arbitrary selectivity[2], the HRC disposes of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a unique ‘peer review’ mechanism[3] based on an interactive dialogue.[4] The UPR raised high expectations[5] when adopted in 2007[6] amongst notable figures such as former Secretary-General of the UN Koffi Anan,[7] critics like de Frouville label the UPR as competing with and overshadowing existing instruments.[8] While Connors and Schmidt[9] appreciate the UPR as monitoring successfully and consider it as ‘largely complementary to, and not in competition with, the procedures of the UN treaty bodies’[10], others criticise the UPR as being mere ritualism.[11] A brief review of the UPR will demonstrate that it provides important added value to the existing monitoring system and has the potential to leave no one behind. Analysing the strengths and weaknesses of this HRC’s flagship enables us to appreciate its effectiveness.

There are strengths and weaknesses in the UPR’s structure, outcome and impact. Firstly, the structure features a ‘peer review’. [12] All UN member states are involved and their capacities to fulfil their human rights obligations are assessed every four-and-a- half years. The first (2008-2011) and second cycle (2012-2017) were considered successful.[13] The ongoing third cycle still has to be assessed. A ‘troika’ facilitates the review, conducted by the Working Group, encompassing all HRC members[14], including those with records of human rights abuses.[15] Unfortunately, a mutual appreciation of human rights records by friendly states cannot be avoided.[16] Additionally, the nature of the dialogue varies from superficial, open, manipulative, to ‘heated diplomatic battles’[17] depending on the topics that are addressed. Promoting the rights of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, for example, generate opposing positions. The UPR is mainly a political process.[18] This, however, is not a constraint: instead, it provides a unique platform for progress through dialogue. Secondly, at the outcome level, recommendations can be noted or accepted.[19] It has been noted that two-thirds of the recommendations of the first and second cycles were accepted. [20] However, their abundance, repetitiveness, vagueness and unimplementability is criticised.[21] To date, more than 85,000 UPR-recommendations have been issued, of which almost 3,000 relate to the rights of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. This alone constitutes a tremendous effort to promote human rights in all countries for all persons. Thirdly, at the impact level, the UPR encourages participation. At times, proceedings are shared via webcasting[22], allowing populations and organisations all over the world to follow the reviews in real-time. Occasionally, the UPR enhances treaty ratification, reporting and withdrawal of reservations, broadening as such the coverage and universality of human rights.[23]

Of course, the UPR has points of improvement, however, it is also, without doubt, an exceptional and outstanding platform to listen to each other and to understand different opinions, expressed by groups living in vulnerable situations or by religious, ethnic, sexual or other minorities. The aim is to take their needs and interests into account and leave no-one behind. In conclusion and in my humble opinion, the UPR is one of the most adequate Human Rights Instruments, enabling the universal promotion of human rights in each of the UN Members States, in an accountable way. The effectiveness of the UPR will even be enhanced when starting in 2022 the fourth cycle, giving each State under Review the possibility to walk the talk and to share their challenges and achievements in promoting the rights of all human beings.

^{[1] Jane Connors, ‘United Nations’ in International Human Rights Law, Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah and Sandesh Sivakumaran (eds), (Oxford: University Press 2018) 371.
[2] Christian Tomuschat, Human Rights Between Idealism and Realism, (Oxford University Press 2014) 191. [3] Connors (n 1) 372.
[4] Rhona K.M. Smith, Textbook on International Human Rights (Oxford 2016) 63.
[5] Nazila Ghanea, 'Public International Law' (2006) 55 Int'l & Comp LQ 705.
[6] HR Council Res 5/1 (18 June 2007).
[7] Connors (n 1) 374.
[8] Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman, International Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2013) 741.
[9] Jane Connors and Markus Schmidt, ‘United Nations’ in International Human Rights Law, Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah and Sandesh Sivakumaran (eds), (Oxford University Press 2014) 364.
[10] Connors (n 1) 374.
[11] Hilary Charlesworth and Emma Larking (eds), Human Rights and the Universal Periodic Review: Rituals and
Ritualism (Cambridge University Press 2014) 49. [12] Connors (n 1) 372.
[13] Connors (n 1) 374.
[14] Connors (n 1) 373.
[15] Ilias Bantekas and Lutz Oette, International Human Rights Law and Practice (Cambridge: University Press 2016) 162.
[16] Connors (n 1) 375.
[17] Tomuschat (n 2) 191.
[18] Alston and Goodman (n 8) 741.
[19] Bantekas and Oette (n 12) 166.
[20] Connors (n 1) 375.
[21] Connors (n 1) 374.
[22] Connors (n 1) 374.
[23] Connors and Schmidt (n 9) 364.}