Edward McMahon, University of Vermontemcmahon@uvm.edu

(with research assistance from UPR Info and Marta Ascherio, UVM)

Provides information and perspective on how the UPR functioning.

This will be important as increasing attention is paid to the UPR in 2011 and 2012.

I will:

Describe the UPR Recommendations Database

Present analysis of data, including regional differentiation in how recommendations process is used

Conclusions – implications for 2011 review Discussion

The UPR Recommendations Database includes a wide range of information of all recommendations made through the first five sessions of the UPR.

This database contains several unique features. It: permits aggregation of information and results,

which permits a wide range of analysis;  allows analysis not just by the State under Review

and its regional group but also by recommending country and regional group; and

includes characterization of each recommendation by action requested, the type of SuR responses, and the issue(s) addressed.

The database includes the following categories. The first six categories contain factual information.

Session Number State under Review (SuR) Regional Group of the SuR State making Recommendation Regional Group of the State making Recommendation Recommendation

The last three categories reflect analysis by McMahon and UPR Info.

SuR Response to Recommendation Issue(s) addressed Action category – characterizes the type of

recommendation

This 1-5 scale characterizes recommendations by level of action requested. Rational Choice Theory suggests a diminishing acceptance rate of recommendations as the level of action required by SuR increases.

LEVELS OF ACTION (From Lowest to Highest) 1 - Recommendation directed at non-SuR states, or calling upon the SuR

to request assistance from, or share information with, non-SuR states Seek contributions from the international community in the

Government’s efforts to promote rights (Ghana to Botswana, Session 3). Share its experiences and best practices with other countries in

establishing national legislation and mechanisms and pursuing international cooperation to curb human trafficking (Philippines to United Arab Emirates, Session 3).

2 – Recommendation emphasizing continuity (continue, persevere, maintain)

Continue its efforts to develop the work of its national institution for human rights, as an effective human rights watchdog (Egypt to Bangladesh, Session 4).

3 – Recommendation to consider change (consider, reflect upon, revise, review, envision)

Consider becoming party to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (Azerbaijan to Mauritius, Session 4).

4 – Recommendation of action that is general in nature (take measures or steps towards, encourage, promote, intensify, accelerate, engage with, respect, enhance)

Take the necessary steps to reduce discriminatory practices and violence against women (France to Mali, Session 2).

5 – Recommendation of specific action (undertake, adopt, ratify, establish, implement, recognize –in international legal sense).

Adopt legislative measures to outlaw domestic violence if it has not done so already (South Africa to Russian Federation, Session 4).

05

1015202530354045

Africa Asia EEG GRULAC WEOG

Reccomendations by recommending state/SuR

Reccs made

Reccs received

Recommendations by Recommending Region to SuR

Recs madeRecs received

% of Recommendations Accepted

   

  Africa Asia EEG GRULAC WEOG

Africa 92 91 69 92 38

Asia 95 92 74 92 41

Rec

omm

endi

ng R

egio

n

SuR Region

EEG 55 58 59 79 43

GRULAC 59 52 70 80 35

WEOG 64 51 65 76 44

Action Category 1 2 3 4 5

           

Africa 48 27 9 13 8

Asia 35 31 12 14 8

EEG 3 9 17 15 16

GRULAC 9 15 32 11 16

WEOG 5 18 30 47 52

100 100 100 100 100

WEOG+GRULAC+Slovenia, Czech Republic= 68%

Slovenia and Czech Republic accounted for 50% of EEG Category 5 recommendations

Asia/Africa/Rest of EEG combined - 32%

Breakdown by Action Categories

  1 2 3 4 5

Session 1-4 153 730 458 1281 1786

3% 17% 10% 29% 41%

Session 5 48 273 182 513 651

3% 16% 11% 31% 39%

63%

65%

51%

67%

78%

The geographic and action category distribution of recommendations for Session 5 was similar to the Session 1-4 aggregate. 

A higher level of acceptances is found in  categories 3 and 5 (as well as 4).  For example, the Session 5 Category 5 acceptance rate is 66%, compared to a 49% rate for Sessions 1-5.

There is increased acceptance in Sessions 5 of the stronger types of recommendations.  

Issue Region-SuR

Africa Asia EEG GRULAC WEOG

Women 37% 30% 9% 12% 11%

Torture 34% 36% 7% 12% 5%

Justice 25% 24% 15% 29% 6%Special procedures 25% 45% 9% 13% 8%

Migrants 8% 30% 8% 10% 43%Technical assistance 55% 34% 2% 8% 1%

Death penalty 33% 42% 3% 18% 3%

Issue Region – Recommending States

Africa Asia EEG GRULAC WEOG

Women 10% 13% 16% 14% 45%

Torture 6% 5% 17% 19% 52%

Justice 7% 9% 12% 15% 53%

Special procedures 9% 11% 30% 23% 33%

Migrants 29% 17% 7% 30% 14%Technical assistance 46% 27% 5% 8% 13%

Death penalty 6% 1% 6% 26% 61%

Analysis of UPR reflect various approaches to its use. Asia/Africa and parts of EEG tend to take a “softer” approach as seen by their relatively lower engagement in the process in terms of a) numbers of recommendations made, and b) their emphasis on making and accepting Category 1,2 and 4 recommendations.

This may result from a) a generally more diplomatic and less direct approach to state-to-state discourse, b) specific avoidance of challenging human rights issues or c) a combination of these elements.

While it is positive and normal that there be a variety of action categories, I suggest that these should tend towards being action oriented, to avoid criticisms of UPR not having significant impact.

There are some states which have been open and self-critical in the review process, or which have already said they are doing some things differently as a result of the process.  These are very positive points from the UPR functioning to date, and should be encouraged.

How recommendations are phrased is critical

Aim should be: A) For recommendations to be specifically

implementable, while B) generating as many acceptances as

possible.