Whose Law? The Strategic Application of International Law and Legal Rhetoric in Human Rights Debates

When it comes to human rights debates, what states are subjected to international legal criticism, and which states make such comments? Scholarship has increasingly considered the role and use of international legal claims in global politics. States may invoke international legal claims – instead of, or in addition to, political, ethical, or moral references – to frame criticisms of other states. It remains unclear, however, what makes a state more likely to make a legalized claim, as well as what types of states are more likely to receive such legalized claims. This paper examines these questions by analyzing all recommendations from the first two cycles of the Universal Periodic Review, a United Nations human rights mechanism where all states are reviewed and where any state may comment on the human rights practices of others. A unique coding of the legal character of more than 57,000 state to state recommendations allows for a two-pronged analysis – identifying which state receive legalized human rights comments and which states choose to make such comments. This paper theorizes that strong democracies will be more likely to use international legal language in their comments, while states with middling human rights records will be more likely to receive legalized comments. This paper deepens our understanding of the political uses of international law in politics and human rights, the logics underpinning legalization in international relations, and the selective application of legal norms in international forums.