Inherited biases? A study of selectivity, bias, and double standards in the UPR

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the UN Human Rights Council was created and designed to prevent the selectivity, bias, and double standards which taint the healthy functioning of international institutions. However, recent scholarship has found evidence of this type of behaviour that jeopardises the credibility and legitimacy of this peer-review mechanism on which there were high hopes. But a question remains unexplored: Are the selectivity, bias, and double standards shown by recommending states their own or somehow inherited from information gathering? This paper theorises that states that report higher levels of independence from potential sources of information and higher levels of standardised bureaucratic practices to make recommendations in the UPR will show lower levels of proclivity to carry inherited biases – measured as the similarity of their recommendations and those suggested by other sources like the UN and NGOs. To test the hypotheses, the paper develops innovative measures that rely on quantitative text analysis and original survey responses from diplomats in Geneva.