Instrumentalism

In a move with profound implications for the international human rights architecture, the United States has formally boycotted its scheduled Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva—marking only the second instance in the history of the UPR mechanism (established in 2008) that a state has refused to participate in its own peer review. This unprecedented decision—confirmed by the U.S. Mission in Geneva and enacted under President Donald Trump’s renewed administration—represents not merely procedural noncompliance, but a deliberate recalibration of U.S. foreign policy that positions human rights norms as dispensable instruments of diplomacy rather than binding obligations of governance. The UPR, a cornerstone of multilateral human rights accountability, mandates that all 193 UN member states undergo peer scrutiny of their domestic rights records every four to five years. Its design embodies the principle of equality of obligation: regardless of geopolitical stature, every state submits to the same process of reporting, questioning, and recommendation. The U.S., long a vocal proponent—indeed, frequent enforcer—of this very system, now stands in open defiance of it. As one former senior U.S. official observed, with poignant irony: “It’s tragic and deeply ironic that we helped to create the norms as well as this process that we are now backing out of.” This refusal to report is especially striking given historical precedent. During Trump’s first term, the United States withdrew from the Human Rights Council in 2018, citing perceived anti-Israel bias—a claim repeatedly challenged by legal scholars and UN rapporteurs alike—but […]