Who Speaks and Who Listens?

Why are some countries more active in “shaming” others publicly? When states engage in naming and shaming towards one another’s performance in human rights, it is easily assumed that states with more capabilities and better human rights conditions would actively name and shame abusers. However, according to the previous research, states do not always shame abusers; states are more favorable and lenient to their friends. Building on this notion, I argue that the decision to shame another country publicly is also based on concerns with relative status in the international system as they participate in the process. By observing the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR), I find a curvilinear relationship between a state’s status and its shaming behaviors in UPR. States with middle status are more eager to participate, and if they are making recommendations, they tend to make more demanding ones.