The Politics of Human Rights: Understanding How Regime Similarity Affects Naming and Shaming at the Universal Periodic Review

How do dyadic relations affect a state’s human rights naming and shaming strategy? We argue that institutional and ideational factors influence democratic states’ understanding of human rights values while in non-democratic states, political factors dominate states’ calculus. Based on ingroup-outgroup perception, pairs of states interact differently in international human rights politics. Our quantitative analyses demonstrate that states with similar regime types are more lenient in providing recommendations at the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and are also more likely to accept one another’s recommendations. Our paper illustrates the dynamic nature of naming and shaming. This paper contributes to the literature by demonstrating regime type as an underlying factor influencing dyadic interactions on human rights issues. Our findings have implications for policymakers who wish to improve human rights in other states.