Advocacy and Accountability: Leveraging the Universal Periodic Review for Human Rights and International Justice

Workshop organised by Exeter Centre for Environmental Law & Environmental Justice Research Cluster, Humanities and Social Sciences, Cornwall, University of Exeter

Friday, 28th June 2024, I am pleased to have been invited to speak at the workshop organised by the Exeter Centre for Environmental Law & Environmental Justice Research Cluster, Humanities and Social Sciences, Cornwall, University of Exeter.

My presentation focused on the United Nations’ UPR showcasing examples of the International Communities Organisation (ICO)’s work through its ECOSOC affiliation. Based on the feedback received, I am excited to share further insights on this subject.

I will first summarise the key terms used in this article, then highlight why the UPR is considered an effective tool for NGOs, and finally, analyse its relation to the Rome Statute. ECOSOC: Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) engage with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) by obtaining consultative status, which allows them to participate in meetings, submit written statements, make oral presentations, and contribute to the council’s work on economic and social issues.

UPR: The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a process that involves a review of the human rights records of all UN Member States. ECOSOC-affiliated NGOs participate in the UPR by submitting written reports and recommendations, engaging in national consultations, attending UPR sessions, and advocating for the implementation of UPR recommendations through follow-up and stakeholder engagement.

As an ECOSOC-affiliated organisation, ICO provided shadow human rights reports for eight countries: Serbia, Israel, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Nigeria, Belize, and Cyprus.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is considered the most effective tool for NGOs to monitor states for several reasons:

1. Comprehensive Coverage: The UPR reviews the human rights records of all UN member states, ensuring that no country is exempt from scrutiny. This universality allows NGOs to address human rights issues on a global scale.

2. Regular Reviews: Each country is reviewed every four and a half years, providing a consistent and predictable schedule for NGOs to prepare their reports and follow up on recommendations.

3. Stakeholder Participation: The UPR process explicitly invites contributions from NGOs and other civil society stakeholders. This inclusive approach allows NGOs to submit information, which is then considered during the review.

4. Government Accountability: Governments are required to report on their human rights practices and respond to recommendations made by other states. This creates a formal mechanism through which NGOs can hold governments accountable for their human rights obligations.

5. Transparency: The UPR process is transparent, with documentation and sessions available to the public. This visibility helps NGOs to advocate more effectively and mobilise public opinion.

6. Constructive Dialogue: The UPR encourages constructive dialogue between states and other stakeholders. NGOs can use this platform to engage directly with government representatives and influence human rights policies and practices.

7. Follow-up Mechanism: The UPR process includes a follow-up mechanism to assess the implementation of recommendations. NGOs can monitor and report on a state’s progress or lack thereof, keeping pressure on governments to make tangible improvements.

8. International Attention: The UPR process attracts international attention, which can amplify the concerns raised by NGOs. This global visibility can lead to increased pressure on states to comply with international human rights standards.

For the purpose of the ecocide workshop at Exeter University, I also highlighted that the UPR process does not specifically include the Rome Statute. The UPR primarily focuses on assessing the human rights records of UN member states, while the Rome Statute is a treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and focuses on international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. However, the Rome Statute and issues related to international criminal justice can be relevant to the UPR process in the following ways:

1. Complementary Frameworks: Both the UPR and the Rome Statute contribute to the broader international human rights and justice framework. While the UPR monitors and reviews human rights practices, the Rome Statute addresses the prosecution of serious international crimes. NGOs can advocate for the implementation of the Rome Statutes principles within the UPR context.

2. State Reporting: During the UPR process, states may be asked about their commitments to international treaties, including the Rome Statute. States that are parties to the Rome Statute might be reviewed on their cooperation with the ICC and their efforts to implement its provisions domestically.

3. Advocacy Opportunities: NGOs can use the UPR platform to raise awareness about the importance of the Rome Statute and advocate for states to ratify and implement it. This can include highlighting cases where states have failed to prosecute serious international crimes or cooperate with the ICC.

4. Human Rights and Accountability: The UPR process can address broader issues of accountability, justice, and impunity, which are also central to the Rome Statute. NGOs can emphasise the connection between human rights violations and international crimes, advocating for comprehensive approaches to justice that include adherence to the Rome Statute.

In summary, while the UPR itself does not specifically include the Rome Statute, there are intersections where issues related to the Rome Statute can be relevant to the UPR process. NGOs can leverage the UPR to advocate for greater adherence to international justice norms and the principles enshrined in the Rome Statute.

Thank you Tiago de Melo Cartaxo for the invitation.

Blog Post, Kübra Kalkandelen , ICO Associate Director.