ABSTRACT
The Universal Periodic Review, a mechanism of the UN Human Rights Council, was created to be cooperative and based on dialogue. Many states interpret cooperation to mean the avoidance of any suggestion that states under review are responsible for domestic human rights violations. Instead, what many reviewing states do is to offer praise and feeble recommendations. Such reviews are of little help in improving the country under review’s domestic record. Moreover, participation in the UPR and an easy review process allow countries under review the pretense that they are serious about human rights. African states have been particularly guilty of such practices, with early commentators accusing them of acting as a mutual praise society, dishing up ‘soft’ reviews, and opting for ritualism instead of a commitment to human rights. This chapter returns to these claims and intends to evaluate the strength of African states’ reviews over the three UPR cycles that have taken place thus far. Specifically, it examines the extent to which African states are willing to address violations of political rights in countries under review. The answer matters for questions about the role of African states in the international human rights system and for how we should view the UPR mechanism.
