27/05/2022

Nuevo artículo sobre el valor añadido del EPU como mecanismo de derechos humanos

Oxford news

Los tres ciclos del Examen Periódico Universal (EPU) han supuesto un aumento progresivo de la participación de todas las partes implicadas. Hay una participación de la totalidad de los Estados miembros de la ONU, un interés creciente de los Estados examinadores y un compromiso cada vez más importante por parte de actores como las ONG, las INDH, los parlamentarios, los medios de comunicación y los jóvenes. Además de la participación, el número de recomendaciones ha aumentado durante los tres ciclos.

Un artículo sobre el valor añadido del EPU, escrito por el candidato al doctorado Kazuo Fukuda, se publicó en el Northwestern Journal of Human Rights el 30 de marzo, con el título "Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review as a Forum of Fighting for Borderline Recommendations ? Lecciones aprendidas sobre el terreno".

A continuación encontrará el enlace al artículo completo y el resumen (en inglés):

Kazuo Fukuda, Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review as a Forum of Fighting for Borderline Recommendations? Lessons Learned from the Ground, 20 NW. J. HUM. RTS. 63 (2022). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr/vol20/iss2/1

ABSTRACT—Highly acclaimed as a key innovation of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was created in 2006 as a cooperative, peer-review mechanism to shift away from the highly politicized Commission on Human Rights. Despite the significance and hope attached to the UPR, it has been conspicuously under-examined in the U.S. legal scholarship. And most relevant literature elsewhere has avoided directly addressing the fundamental question of exactly what the UPR’s added value is to the global human rights regime in terms of its direct contribution to improving human rights situations on the ground. This is mainly due to methodological and analytical challenges to measure the impact of the UPR in isolation from other existing human rights mechanisms. While acknowledging such challenges, this article attempts to provide one such answer to the question from a normative perspective: it argues that the UPR’s added value lies in providing a forum to incrementally and constantly challenge the threshold of states under review for accepting their commitment to addressing controversial human rights issues. Drawing from the experiences of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and other countries as well as the literature on peer pressure and acculturation, this article articulates the current issues of the UPR mechanism in terms of recommendations given to states under review by their peers and suggests the way forward for the UPR mechanism by reframing it as a forum of fighting for borderline recommendations.

 

*Los puntos de vista y las opiniones expresadas en este artículo son de los autores y no necesariamente reflejan la posición oficial de UPR Info.