Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:08:32.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Italy and the Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Playing the two-level game

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2017

Andrea Cofelice Open the ORCID record for Andrea Cofelice [Opens in a new window]
Andrea Cofelice*
Affiliation:
Centre for Studies on Federalism, Turin, Italy
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this article is to assess Italy’s behaviour in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United Nations Human Rights Council, both as a recommending state and as a state under review. The UPR is a peer review mechanism launched in 2008, through which all UN member states can make recommendations to each other regarding human rights practices. Drawing on role theory, liberal and constructivist institutionalism, and the two-level game approach, the analysis reveals that Italian decision-makers played parallel games at the domestic and international tables of the UPR, and managed to adapt country’s human rights foreign policy goals according to the different social contexts where they operated. Indeed, while in the review phase in Geneva, Italy sought legitimacy for both its policies and its status as an international ‘human rights friendly’ actor, at domestic level a policy of inactivity was chosen, in order to minimize the impact of the most costly UPR recommendations, and protect the dynamics of domestic politics. The time-span of the analysis covers the first 19 UPR sessions (2008–14), broadly coinciding with Italy’s first two membership terms at the Human Rights Council.

Keywords

Italyinternational organizationsUnited Nationshuman rightsinstitutionalism
Type
Research Article
Information
Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica , Volume 47 , Special Issue 2: Special issue: Italian Foreign Policy: To Take Arms against a Sea of Troubles? , July 2017 , pp. 227 - 250
Copyright
© Società Italiana di Scienza Politica 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Axelrod, R. and Keohane, R.O. (1985), ‘Achieving cooperation under anarchy: strategies and institutions’, World Politics 38: 226–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belotti, V. and Cofelice, A. (2010), Barometro della solidarietà internazionale degli italiani, Rome: Volontari nel mondo – FOCSIV.Google Scholar
Claude, I.L. Jr (1966), ‘Collective legitimization as a political function of the United Nations’, International Organization 20(3): 367–379.Google Scholar
Cooper, A.F. (1997), ‘Niche diplomacy: a conceptual overview’, in Andrew F. Cooper (ed.), Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers After the Cold War, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Danish Institute for Human Rights (2011), ‘Universal Periodic Review first cycle. Reporting methodologies from the position of the state, civil society and national human rights institutions. Retrieved 18 February 2017 from https://www.humanrights.dk/publications/universal-periodic-review-first-cycle.Google Scholar
Downs, G.W. and Jones, M.A. (2002), ‘Reputation, compliance, and international law’, Journal of Legal Studies 31(S1): 95–114.Google Scholar
Farber, D.A. (2002), ‘Rights as signals’, Journal of Legal Studies 31(1): 83–98.Google Scholar
Filippone-Thaulero, S. (2012), ‘L’impegno del Senato della Repubblica per i diritti umani: dal Comitato contro la pena di morte alla Commissione straordinaria’, Pace diritti umani – Peace Human Rights 3: 21–46.Google Scholar
Flockhart, T. (2006), ‘“Complex socialization”: a framework for the study of state socialization’, European Journal of International Relations 12(1): 89–118.Google Scholar
Folz, R. (2011), ‘Does membership matter? Convergence of Sweden’s and Norway’s role conceptions by interaction with the European Union’, in S. Harnisch, C. Frank and H.W. Maull (eds), Role Theory in International Relations. Approaches and Analyses, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 147–164.Google Scholar
Harnisch, S. (2011), ‘Role theory: operationalization of key concepts’, in S. Harnisch, C. Frank and H.W. Maull (eds), Role Theory in International Relations. Approaches and Analyses, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 7–15.Google Scholar
Hathaway, O.A. (2002), ‘Do human rights treaties make a difference?’, Yale Law Journal 111: 1935–2042.Google Scholar
Lebovic, J.H. and Voeten, E. (2006), ‘The politics of shame: the condemnation of country human rights practices in the UNCHR’, International Studies Quarterly 50: 861–888.Google Scholar
McMahon, E.R. and Ascherio, M. (2012), ‘A step ahead in promoting human rights? The Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council’, Global Governance 18: 231–248.Google Scholar
McMahon, E.R., Busia, K. and Ascherio, M. (2013), ‘Comparing peer reviews: the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council and the African peer review mechanism’, African and Asian Studies 12: 266–289.Google Scholar
Putnam, R.D. (1988), ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games’, International Organization 42(3): 427–460.Google Scholar
Romero, F. (2016), ‘Rethinking Italy’s shrinking place in the international arena’, The International Spectator 51(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Salleo, F. and Pirozzi, N. (2008), ‘Italy at the United Nations Security Council’, The International Spectator 43(2): 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmelfennig, F. (2001), ‘The community trap: liberal norms, rhetorical action, and the eastern enlargement of the European Union’, International Organization 55: 47–80.Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, F., Engert, S. and Knobel, H. (2006), International Socialization in Europe: European Organizations, Political Conditionality and Democratic Change, Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Smith, K.E. (2013), ‘The European Union and the politics of legitimization at the United Nations’, European Foreign Affairs Review 18(1): 63–80.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (2005), In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all: report of the Secretary General (A/59/2005/Add.3), 26 May 2005.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (2007), Letter dated 17 April 2007 from the Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations addressed to the President of the General Assembly (A/61/863), 17 April 2007.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (2011), Note verbale dated 11 February 2011 from the Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations addressed to the Secretariat (A/65/733), 15 February 2011.Google Scholar
United Nations Human Rights Council (UN HRC) (2010a), Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Italy (A/HRC/14/4), 18 March 2010.Google Scholar
United Nations Human Rights Council (UN HRC) (2010b), Response of the Government of Italy to recommendations in the report of 11 February 2010 of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/14/4/Add.1), 31 May 2010.Google Scholar
United Nations Human Rights Council (UN HRC) (2014), National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21, Italy (A/HRC/WG.6/20/ITA/1), 21 July 2014.Google Scholar
UPR Info (2014), Beyond promises: the impact of UPR on the ground. Retrieved 18 February 2017 from http://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/general-document/pdf/2014_beyond_promises.pdf.Google Scholar
Voeten, E. (2000), ‘Clashes in the assembly’, International Organization 54(2): 185–215.Google Scholar