From multilateral retreat to local engagement: the role of cities in the universal periodic review

Abstract

This commentary examines the implications of the United States’ 2025 withdrawal from the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for the future functioning of international human rights monitoring. It considers whether, and to what extent, the UPR could continue to operate in situations of State non-cooperation by relying on information submitted by ‘other stakeholders’, including local governments, under the existing framework established by Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1. Drawing on the experience of voluntary local reviews (VLRs) developed to monitor implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, the commentary argues that many cities possess the institutional capacity, administrative expertise, and reporting experience necessary to contribute structured evidence on the local implementation of human rights. The VLR precedent demonstrates municipal reporting capacity rather than authority to assume functions reserved for States, making the analogy functional rather than legal. An initiative by nearly 150 American state and local elected officials urging the Human Rights Council to proceed with the UPR despite federal non-cooperation illustrates the practical relevance of this proposal. The commentary concludes that incorporating city-generated reports as stakeholder submissions could strengthen the evidentiary basis and resilience of the UPR while preserving its state-centred institutional architecture and contributing to a more multilevel approach to international human rights accountability.