A Network Analysis of Naming and Shaming in the Universal Periodic Review

What decides naming and shaming behavior of states? In the present paper I examine state recommendations in the Universal Periodic Review and show that naming and shaming is inherently a social phenomenon and network analysis can contribute to the better understanding of this broader social context. Using original qualitative data collected from Geneva, Switzerland, I develop a theory of the interdependent nature of state shaming, mainly through the work of non-governmental organizations. I argue that states are more likely to name and shame other states if many other countries have also named and shamed the same states. As non-governmental organizations contribute to revealing information about reviewer states’ interests to one another, states believe their costs are lower when states shame together than when they shame alone. The empirical analyses of Exponential Random Graph Models of the Universal Periodic Review shaming network from 2012 to 2016 find evidence of bandwagon effects even after controlling for the effects of other network structures, dyadic geopolitical relations, and state level attributes. This paper helps us better understand the decision of state-to-state shaming by incorporating social relations and networks.