National human rights institutions as expert actors in global human rights governance: the case of the UN universal periodic review

Abstract

Despite governments investing considerable resources in the establishment and use of expert bodies, not all expert groups are able to successfully fulfill their role, facing limitations to different aspects of operation. Drawing on a politics of expertise approach, we explore how the setup of expert bodies affects their daily functioning. We contend that, to successfully perform its expert role, a body’s expertise in practice must indeed match the expertise it needs to perform its duties. To measure a body’s expertise, we build upon existing categorizations of expertise, and we additionally develop two new typologies: resource-centered and task-related expertise. We illustrate our argument with an analysis of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), key actors in the multilevel governance of human rights. Acting as a bridge between the national and international levels, NHRIs provide independent expertise, facilitating states’ participation in international human rights governance mechanisms, like the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR). We analyze original documentary and survey data on NHRIs in the Asia Pacific and show that, despite working in hostile national environments, these bodies have been able to successfully fulfill their expert role to a larger extent than we originally expected.