Reservations to human rights treaties in recommendations from the universal periodic review: an emerging practice?

Abstract

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process of the UN Human Rights Council has issued thousands of recommendations to States undergoing the review process. An increasing number of them concern legal subjects and this article explores recommendations in relation to reservations to human right treaties. Although the UPR process was designed to be distinct to treaty bodies UPR recommendations are increasingly overlapping with their work. The UPR process is showing signs of developing its own approach to reservations which could help address the problem of impermissible recommendations to human rights treaties.

Social Pressure in the International Human Rights Regime: Why States Withdraw Treaty Reservations

“…For example, the CEDAW committee has adopted official recommendations that states withdraw reservations to Articles 2 and 16 in particular (De Pauw 2013). The Committee on the Rights of the Child also entreats states to withdraw their reservations (Cowell 2021). Moreover, though not associated with a particular treaty, the UPR has issued almost 400 recommendations on reservations to various human rights treaties, most of which encourage states to withdraw reservations (Cowell 2021).…”

“…Though the tone and intention of committee reports are not necessarily to condemn states, the high-profile reports illuminate problems in states' human rights practice, and this frequently involves targeting states' reservations. Committee reports are not likely to universally or single-handedly persuade states to withdraw reservations, but they constitute an iterative institutional practice that works to change state behavior through social interaction and pressure from other treaty members (Cowell 2021). For example, after its first review by the CEDAW committee, Mauritania accepted the committee's recommendation to amend or withdraw its recommendation.…”

“…For example, after its first review by the CEDAW committee, Mauritania accepted the committee's recommendation to amend or withdraw its recommendation. By its second review, Mauritania was able to report compliance with the recommendation (Cowell 2021, 280).…”

“…While institutional pressure from treaty bodies may occur at any time, and may develop over months and years, the pressure likely peaks around periodic reviews. For example, during the CRC committee's review of Somalia in 2016, Germany recommended that Somalia withdraw its reservations to the Convention, bolstering its previous objection to Somalia's reservation (Cowell 2021, 280).…”