U.S. Engagement with the Universal Periodic Review: A Decline?

U.S. Disengages from UN Human Rights Review Process Under Trump Governance

Washington D.C. – The United States appears to have substantially reduced its engagement wiht the UN Human Rights Council’s Worldwide Periodic Review (UPR) process, a critical mechanism for international human rights scrutiny. A statement from the U.S. was issued on the final day of the Biden presidency in the January 2025 session, but the current Trump administration has not submitted any new recommendations.

This cessation of engagement raises concerns that the U.S. may be fully withdrawing from submitting its own human rights record for review by other member states, a departure from the first Trump term. Despite withdrawing from the Human Rights Council in 2018, the U.S.government did submit a report to the UPR in 2020 and continued to offer recommendations to other nations. The UPR, intended as a platform for positive peer pressure on human rights, allows national governments to engage and respond to recommendations on record, though it has inevitably faced politicization, with some countries promoting controversial issues like abortion and gender ideology, which are not universally recognized as human rights.

During the Obama administration,the U.S. actively pushed for the decriminalization of homosexual behavior and the adoption of anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation and gender identity, continuing these efforts into the first Trump administration. The Biden administration further intensified these recommendations, notably advocating for same-sex marriage as a human rights issue and pressuring Benin and Guatemala to withdraw from the pro-life Geneva Consensus Declaration, an initiative established by Trump.

If the U.S. intends to participate in its scheduled review in November, its national report is due by August 4th. The failure to submit this report could lead the Human Rights council to postpone the U.S. review,perhaps to 2027,as has occurred with countries like Ukraine and Myanmar due to conflict or political instability. Though, this outcome might potentially be less significant for the current administration.

To what extent has the shift in U.S. administrations impacted the level of detail and clarity in national reports submitted for UPR review?

U.S.Engagement with the Global Periodic Review: A Decline?

What is the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)?

the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a crucial component of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Established in 2006, it involves a review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States. This peer review process, occurring every 4.5 years, aims to promote the fulfillment of human rights obligations and improve human rights situations globally. Each review includes:

National Report: Submitted by the State under review, outlining progress and challenges.

Stakeholder Submissions: From NGOs, civil society organizations, and other relevant parties.

Interactive Dialog: A three-hour session where the State responds to questions and recommendations from other UN Member States.

Adoption of Outcomes: The State publicly commits to implementing accepted recommendations.

Key terms related to the UPR include human rights mechanisms, international human rights law, and UN Human Rights Council.

Historical U.S. Participation in the UPR

Initially, the United States actively participated in the UPR process. The first U.S. review took place in 2010, followed by subsequent reviews in 2015 and 2020. Early engagement was characterized by:

1. Robust National Reports: Detailed documentation of U.S. human rights practices.
2. Willingness to Engage: Active participation in the interactive dialogue, responding to concerns raised by other nations.
3. Acceptance of Recommendations: A notable number of recommendations were accepted, demonstrating a commitment to improvement.

During these early stages, the U.S. viewed the UPR as a valuable chance to showcase its human rights record and address legitimate concerns. The process was seen as a constructive dialogue, fostering transparency and accountability. U.S. human rights policy was demonstrably influenced by the UPR recommendations in areas like criminal justice reform and protections for vulnerable groups.

Signs of Declining Engagement: The 2020 Review and Beyond

However, the 2020 UPR review of the United States signaled a noticeable shift in engagement. Several factors contributed to this perceived decline:

Reduced Delegation Size: The U.S. delegation was smaller compared to previous reviews, raising concerns about the level of priority given to the process.

Limited responses: Responses to questions and recommendations were frequently enough brief and lacked detailed explanations.

Fewer Recommendations Accepted: The U.S. accepted a significantly lower percentage of recommendations compared to the 2015 review. Specifically,the U.S. accepted 64% of recommendations in 2015, but only 46% in 2020.

Increased Defensiveness: A more defensive posture was adopted during the interactive dialogue, with a reluctance to acknowledge certain criticisms.

This shift coincided with a broader trend of the U.S. questioning and, at times, withdrawing from multilateral institutions and international agreements. Terms like sovereignty, national interests, and multilateralism became central to the debate surrounding U.S. engagement with the UPR.

Specific Areas of Concern Highlighted During the UPR

The UPR process consistently highlights several recurring concerns regarding the U.S. human rights record. These include:

Racial Discrimination: Concerns persist regarding systemic racism in law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and other areas. The deaths of George Floyd and Breonna taylor in 2020 brought renewed international scrutiny to this issue.

Police Brutality: Excessive force by law enforcement, notably against minority communities, remains a significant concern.

Immigration Policies: The treatment of migrants and asylum seekers, including family separations at the border, has drawn widespread criticism.

Death Penalty: The continued use of the death penalty, particularly in light of concerns about due process and potential for wrongful convictions, is a recurring point of contention.

Gun Violence: The high rate of gun violence in the U.S. and the lack of comprehensive gun control measures are frequently raised.

Indigenous Rights: Issues related to land rights, treaty obligations, and environmental protection for Native american tribes are consistently highlighted.

These areas are frequently enough the focus of recommendations made by other UN Member States.Human rights violations in these areas are consistently documented by organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The impact of political Transitions on U.S. UPR Engagement

U.S. engagement with the UPR appears to be heavily influenced by changes in administration. The Trump administration’s approach was markedly different from that of the Obama administration, characterized by a more isolationist foreign policy and a greater emphasis on national sovereignty.

The biden administration has signaled a renewed commitment to multilateralism and human rights. Though, the extent to which this translates into increased engagement with the UPR remains to be seen. The next UPR review, scheduled for 2025, will be a critical test of the U.S.’s commitment to the process. foreign policy shifts and political ideologies play a significant role in shaping