THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL’S UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW AS A RHETORICAL BATTLEFIELD OF NATIONS: Useful Tool or Futile Performance ?

Abstract

Applying the case study of Saudi Arabia, this article examines the rhetoric of nations who are well documented as being severe violators of human rights and the use they make of the UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism to defend, downplay, and deny their human rights violations. Authoritarian countries who violate human rights systemically, severely, and intentionally as a matter of government policy apply different rhetorical strategies when undergoing the UPR process and writing and submitting their respective national reports for the UPR process. This article analyzes these strategies, illustrates how different countries use them during the UPR process, and explores the value and limitations of the UPR process and its efficacy at advancing human rights.