نبذة مختصرة : This thesis employs global governance theory to undertake a critical investigation of the function of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) as a governance regime in relation to concepts of legitimacy and authority, particularly in response to the state of Yemen as a state in crisis. Fundamental to this investigation is the conceptualisation of the global human rights framework as an ‘international human rights regime complex’. This contributes to an evaluation of the UPR’s governance function as an entity that supports multi-directional interaction between the institutions within that regime complex. This study evaluates the governance function of the UPR regarding its input (source) legitimacy, procedural legitimacy and output (substantive) legitimacy. It assesses the means by which the UPR commands authority and legitimises other entities within the proposed ‘international human rights regime complex’ and the evolving role of civil society. Alongside this, a central focus is a recognition and exploration of the various challenges to the UPR’s legitimacy and authority. This includes matters of process compliance above substantive compliance, states failing to implement recommendations, politicisation and ritualism, and reprisals against human rights defenders. These matters are variously subject to the historical, cultural and social context of a state or region and the broader geopolitical dynamic, as well as the institutional failings of the United Nations (UN). Whilst a peer review mechanism such as the UPR cannot resolve these challenges of itself, it has an important role to play. Taking account of this context, this thesis concludes with recommendations to strengthen the UPR’s governance function generally and in particular for states in crisis such as Yemen. It closes by contemplating what states such as Yemen might lose in the absence of the UPR.
Processing Request
No Comments.