Keeping the Doors Open or Closed? The Impact of Transparency on the Authority of Peer Reviews in International Organisations

Peer reviews in international organizations are increasingly employed soft-governance instruments in which states disclose information on their compliance with international standards in a given policy area. This information is subsequently assessed by other states. Due to their non-binding nature, peer reviews can only produce meaningful results if the actors involved perceive them as authoritative mechanisms. Authority is here conceptualized as legitimate power. It exists if there is a shared belief among the involved actors in the appropriateness and legitimacy of a peer-review mechanism regarding its mission, procedures and capabilities. We argue that the authority of peer reviews can be the result of the legitimation strategies of international organizations. In particular, the institutional design of the reviews may play a role. We therefore ask whether particular design features increase the authority of review mechanisms. Specifically, we investigate whether transparency as a self-legitimation practice is successful in increasing the authority of the review. The paper focuses on two peer-review mechanisms within the UN which strongly differ regarding their degree of transparency: the peer-review mechanism of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of human rights. These reviewing schemes use transparency-enhancing features such as webcasts, online information and observer access to different degrees. The UPR prescribes full disclosure of all procedural phases to the general public, while UNCAC grants a higher level of confidentiality to the reviewed state. Both reviews are employed in politically sensitive policy fields where governments are generally hesitant to disclose information, creating a need for legitimation strategies to secure the support of member states. By focusing on two young peer reviews within the UN, we hold potentially confounding variables constant. The study is based on semi-structured interviews with officials involved in the two peer-review mechanisms, at the organizational or member-state level.