The fading ‘U’ in UPR: is universality at risk?
On Friday afternoon, the 50th session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group concluded earlier than planned after the United States of America (USA) did not attend its scheduled human rights review.
The UPR of the USA was set on Friday the 7th of November at 14:30 (CET). After said time, the President of the Human Rights Council (HRC) announced that the USA delegation was not present, as had been communicated in a letter sent at the end of August 2025. Despite the efforts by the HRC in the past months to encourage the country to reconsider the decision, Washington maintained its position not to participate.
Following the announcement, the President of the Council opened an organisational meeting to consider the draft decision addressing the non-cooperation of a member state (A/HRC/OM19/L.1). Only Cuba, China, and Cyprus took the floor to express their views in light of the USA’s withdrawal. As a result of the meeting the draft decision was adopted and the review has been postponed to the 53rd session of the UPR Working Group, scheduled for April 2026.
While the decision was not unexpected, it raises questions about the future of universal participation in the UPR process — a mechanism designed to promote and protect human rights among all UN member states.
It is not the first time that the universality of the mechanism has been put into question. There have been isolated instances of partial or temporary disengagement in the past. For example, Israel initially withdrew from cooperation with the HRC during its second cycle in 2012 but resumed engagement the following year. In 2022 Ukraine’s review was postponed to the end of the fourth cycle at the country’s request due to “current exceptional circumstances.” During the 3rd UPR cycle, Myanmar has not attended the HRC’s adoption of its UPR report and did not provide a response to the recommendations. Similarly, in 2025, Nicaragua participated in the interactive dialogue through a pre-recorded message but has not yet indicated whether it supports the recommendations it received.
Despite the U.S. decision not to participate in the fourth UPR cycle, civil society organizations have remained active, organising events in Geneva and in the USA to raise awareness of key human rights issues before the international community.
Beyond being an international monitoring mechanism, the UPR is also a national process. It enables domestic actors to bring attention to human rights concerns at the international level approximately every four and a half years. The recommendations formulated by other states during the UPR Working Group are then brought back to the national level for follow-up. Engagement with these recommendations represents a commitment not only to the international community but, above all, to a country’s own citizens.