Nouvel article sur la valeur ajoutée de l'EPU en tant que mécanisme des droits de l'homme

Les trois cycles de l'Examen périodique universel (EPU) ont connu une augmentation progressive de la participation de toutes les parties prenantes. Il y a une participation de la totalité des États membres de l'ONU, un intérêt accru des États examinateurs et un engagement de plus en plus important de la part des acteurs comme les ONG, les INDH, les parlementaires, les médias et les jeunes. Outre la participation, le nombre de recommandations a également augmenté au cours des trois cycles.

Un article sur la valeur ajoutée de l'EPU, écrit par le candidat au doctorat Kazuo Fukuda, a été publié dans le Northwestern Journal of Human Rights le 30 mars, intitulé "Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review as a Forum of Fighting for Borderline Recommendations ? Lessons Learned from the Ground".

Vous trouverez ci-dessous le lien vers l'article complet et le résumé (en anglais) :

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.

*Les points de vue et opinions exprimés dans cet article sont ceux des auteurs et ne reflètent pas forcément la position officielle d’UPR Info