Power, Politicization, and Network Positions : Explaining State Participation in the UPR

Abstract

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) ensures formal equality among partic- ipating member states. However, previous literature emphasizes the interfer- ence of state interest and politics in undermining the universal peer evaluation mechanism. In this article, I argue that while the UPR shows certain bias in state behavior for providing recommendations, the UPR otherwise functions according to its purpose of condemning human rights violations. I find that member states’ human rights index scores and the level of democracy cor- relate with the number of recommendations received and the betweenness centrality measures. First, I apply social network analysis (SNA) on state in- teraction in the UPR literature enabling inter-network comparisons with inter- national trade relations, military dispute, and alliance relationships. The QAP analyses depict that the UPR network has a low association with the military dispute network and the alliance network. Second, individual level analyses demonstrate that states with higher national capabilities and a greater amount of trade exports are more likely to provide recommendations. Nonetheless, higher human rights index levels lead to more recommendation providing ac- tivity while smaller in magnitude. However, the amount of recommendations received by a state suggests that states with low human rights records and low levels of democracy receive more recommendations. Furthermore, the betweenness centrality measures highly correlate with the human rights in- dex and the level of democracy implying that the general standard of human rights influences the degree of state centrality in the UPR network. This study acknowledges the presence of politicization among states in providing recom- mendations, but also ensures that the UPR is shaming states according to its main purpose in criticizing the human rights violations of non-compliers.