The Universal Periodic Review - is there life beyond naming and shaming in human rights implementation?

Abstract

This article examines the traditional manner in which human rights implementation has been focused on confrontational approaches, in particular on the practice of “naming and shaming”, while more cooperative models have been traditionally overlooked. Through the prism of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) it tests the effectiveness of non-confrontational approaches to human rights implementation. The article challenges the conventional wisdom among human rights advocates that non-confrontational mechanisms are synonymous with lack of efficiency and impact, and suggests that some of the commitments made by states during the UPR process could be interpreted as potential sources of obligations under international law.