Transparency, accountability, and legitimacy within the UN Universal Periodic Review

Alice Storey, Mark R Eccleston-Turner

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter


    This chapter critically analyses the transparency surrounding the OHCHR?s decision-making role in the UPR. In particular, it focuses on how the OHCHR compiles two of the key UPR reports for each Member State UPR, identifying that this process is significantly lacking in transparency. The first case study was a review of the United States of America?s (USA) UPRs in the context of the abolition of capital punishment. The second case study examined the role of the UPR in improving access to HIV-medication in the top five HIV-prevalent States: eSwatini (formerly Swaziland), Lesotho, Botswana, South Africa, and Namibia. This chapter uses the two reports compiled by the OHCHR in the six countries? UPRs to the end of 2018 in order to suggest ways in which the compilation of the reports could be more transparent. By making the OHCHR?s role within the UPR clearer, this will legitimise its role within the global human rights framework. In turn, it will allow the OHCHR to be a prominent body for furthering human rights across the world through the UPR and beyond, thus minimising the risk of populist States failing to engage with the UPR.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationHuman Rights at Risk: Rethinking International Institutions, American Power, and the Future of Dignity
    PublisherRutgers University Press
    ISBN (Print)9781978828421
    Publication statusPublished (VoR) - 17 Jun 2022


    Dive into the research topics of 'Transparency, accountability, and legitimacy within the UN Universal Periodic Review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this