Promoting compliance with human rights: the performance of the UN Universal Periodic Review and treaty bodies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

39 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

What mechanisms facilitate state compliance with human rights? This article proposes and applies a model to assess the extent to which two United Nations human rights mechanisms, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and the state reporting procedure of the treaty bodies, are perceived as capable to stimulate compliance with human rights, and why. It does so by identifying a set of goals potentially achieved by these organizations – generating pressure, stimulating learning, providing an accurate overview of states’ performance, and delivering practically-feasible recommendations – and testing the extent to which reaching these goals is seen to facilitate compliance with human rights. It concludes that the treaty bodies’ perceived strength lies in providing states with learning opportunities and an accurate overview of their internal situations. In contrast, the UPR is deemed particularly strong in generating peer and public pressure on states. From a theoretical point of view, this article shows that, under certain conditions, the three main theoretical schools on compliance – enforcement, management, and constructivist – offer credible explanations for states’ performance in implementing human rights recommendations, with the enforcement school faring relatively better than the others. Data were collected by means of forty semi-structured interviews and an online survey.
Original languageEnglish
JournalInternational Studies Quarterly
Early online date2019
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 2019

Cite this

@article{2d3dd31af9254ad492f7dd5c06ea7e3e,
title = "Promoting compliance with human rights: the performance of the UN Universal Periodic Review and treaty bodies",
abstract = "What mechanisms facilitate state compliance with human rights? This article proposes and applies a model to assess the extent to which two United Nations human rights mechanisms, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and the state reporting procedure of the treaty bodies, are perceived as capable to stimulate compliance with human rights, and why. It does so by identifying a set of goals potentially achieved by these organizations – generating pressure, stimulating learning, providing an accurate overview of states’ performance, and delivering practically-feasible recommendations – and testing the extent to which reaching these goals is seen to facilitate compliance with human rights. It concludes that the treaty bodies’ perceived strength lies in providing states with learning opportunities and an accurate overview of their internal situations. In contrast, the UPR is deemed particularly strong in generating peer and public pressure on states. From a theoretical point of view, this article shows that, under certain conditions, the three main theoretical schools on compliance – enforcement, management, and constructivist – offer credible explanations for states’ performance in implementing human rights recommendations, with the enforcement school faring relatively better than the others. Data were collected by means of forty semi-structured interviews and an online survey.",
author = "Valentina Carraro",
year = "2019",
language = "English",
journal = "International Studies Quarterly",
issn = "0020-8833",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Promoting compliance with human rights: the performance of the UN Universal Periodic Review and treaty bodies

AU - Carraro, Valentina

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - What mechanisms facilitate state compliance with human rights? This article proposes and applies a model to assess the extent to which two United Nations human rights mechanisms, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and the state reporting procedure of the treaty bodies, are perceived as capable to stimulate compliance with human rights, and why. It does so by identifying a set of goals potentially achieved by these organizations – generating pressure, stimulating learning, providing an accurate overview of states’ performance, and delivering practically-feasible recommendations – and testing the extent to which reaching these goals is seen to facilitate compliance with human rights. It concludes that the treaty bodies’ perceived strength lies in providing states with learning opportunities and an accurate overview of their internal situations. In contrast, the UPR is deemed particularly strong in generating peer and public pressure on states. From a theoretical point of view, this article shows that, under certain conditions, the three main theoretical schools on compliance – enforcement, management, and constructivist – offer credible explanations for states’ performance in implementing human rights recommendations, with the enforcement school faring relatively better than the others. Data were collected by means of forty semi-structured interviews and an online survey.

AB - What mechanisms facilitate state compliance with human rights? This article proposes and applies a model to assess the extent to which two United Nations human rights mechanisms, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and the state reporting procedure of the treaty bodies, are perceived as capable to stimulate compliance with human rights, and why. It does so by identifying a set of goals potentially achieved by these organizations – generating pressure, stimulating learning, providing an accurate overview of states’ performance, and delivering practically-feasible recommendations – and testing the extent to which reaching these goals is seen to facilitate compliance with human rights. It concludes that the treaty bodies’ perceived strength lies in providing states with learning opportunities and an accurate overview of their internal situations. In contrast, the UPR is deemed particularly strong in generating peer and public pressure on states. From a theoretical point of view, this article shows that, under certain conditions, the three main theoretical schools on compliance – enforcement, management, and constructivist – offer credible explanations for states’ performance in implementing human rights recommendations, with the enforcement school faring relatively better than the others. Data were collected by means of forty semi-structured interviews and an online survey.

M3 - Article

JO - International Studies Quarterly

JF - International Studies Quarterly

SN - 0020-8833

ER -