| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
151997
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
North Korea’s participation in the UNHRC’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR)—a peer review in which states make recommendations to one another for improving human rights implementation—is a notable exception to its rejection of other human rights mechanisms. What explains North Korea’s willing participation in the UPR? This essay analyses North Korea’s participation in the first (2008–11) and second (2012–15) UPR cycles through its written submissions, responses to recommendations, and recommendations to other states. It finds that North Korea has consistently accepted weak recommendations, rejected more specific policy changes, and implemented accepted recommendations on a limited basis, allowing it to claim compliance with human rights at minimal cost. The UPR’s reliance on states’ self-reports and its inability to adjudicate competing factual claims allow North Korea to reject claims of egregious abuses, openly advocate for a radically state-centric vision of human rights, and challenge the legitimacy of human rights mechanisms like the Commission of Inquiry and Special Rapporteur while building support from other states with similar views. Notably, the Commission of Inquiry appears to have motivated North Korea to increase its cooperation with the UPR, demonstrating that the UPR complements but cannot replace other UN human rights mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
102781
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
172293
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has been a promising instrument in the hands of the United Nations Human Rights Council. With more emphasis on constructive criticism than an adversarial approach, it was thought that this method would help states to improve their human rights records. This article takes the case of India’s last review through this process and derives various trends and patterns of interaction with other states. It starts by outlining the process of the UPR itself and how it works procedurally, after which it highlights India’s presentation of its human rights record, and subsequently how the international community reacted to it. One of the core arguments of this article is that when it comes to human rights, it is important to analyse its politics through a regional lens since geographical continuities determine an overall outlook towards human rights and priorities that states highlight when they consider human rights records on the whole. This is further substantiated by looking at instances when bilateralism has not succeeded in its goals. It also makes certain statistical inferences after close examination of the recommendations posed by states, as well as India’s response (or lack thereof) to those recommendations. The article also highlights certain cases from India’s domestic developments to see how it plays out in the international community and their perception of India’s human rights record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|