The US and the UN Human Rights Council: Who holds the power?

Photo via Reuters

HANNAH ABDELSHAHID: As debates over human rights, sovereignty and global accountability intensify, the United States’ decision to skip its own UN review raises unsettling questions: who gets to define human rights norms, and what happens when the system’s most powerful actors refuse to participate?

International institutions, like the United Nations, are designed to check state behavior, ensuring that global norms are still being followed despite rising national interests. The Universal Periodic Review  or UPR mechanism, central to the Human Rights Council’s mandate, was created precisely to ensure that every state, regardless of power, undergoes the same process. 

Yet, on Nov. 7, 2025, the United States failed to appear for its scheduled review in Geneva, highlighting an enduring challenge: what is the purpose of the institution if it relies on state cooperation?

Critics argue that the United States’ absence undermines the core principles of universality that the UN tries to uphold. By refusing to participate in one of the few global mechanisms where every country is equally reviewed (unlike the UN security council), the US signals that great, or “superior” powers may consider themselves above the norms they expect others to follow. From a realist sense, this mirrors a harsh reality: many powerful states can use institutions strategically, cooperating when it aligns with national interests and withdrawing when it does not.

The context of this decision is also important to consider given that the United States has faced international criticism in recent years. Whether it be handling of broader policies including its participation in conflicts like Russia-Ukraine or Israel-Palestine to domestic policy practices including the National Guard and new advancements to the Department of Homeland Security. This reveals that even if a nation is abusing its power in its relational dynamics with other countries or with its own citizens, the UN, due to limited enforcement mechanisms, may still be unable to interfere. 

This interdependence whereby the legitimacy of the institution depends heavily on voluntary compliance emphasizes the structural issues within these global frameworks themselves. The HRC, relying on moral authority, peer evaluation and pressure is not necessarily enough to encourage state engagement. 

Though the council rescheduled the United States review for 2026, the impact was clear. From a liberalist perspective, this reflects the fragility but also the importance of global governance frameworks like the UN. Institutions like the HRC are designed to fulfill their goals through these types of set-ups: hearings, recommendations, public reporting. 

However, when a player does not engage, it strains the cooperative fabric of the system. Yet paradoxically, it also makes other actors reaffirm their commitment to multilateralism because it is now in their power and will to defend universal norms.

For the United States, failing to participate in human rights mechanisms can weaken leadership especially when aiming to have influence abroad. This also complicated U.S. diplomacy on issues like freedom of expression. For decades, American foreign policy has framed itself as a defender of democratic values and human rights. 

Yet practice (or reality) and theory increasingly diverge. In 2024 alone, over 300 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were introduced across U.S. states, and more than 10,500 individuals were placed in solitary confinement in U.S. immigration facilities between April 2024 and May 2025. The US-Mexico border has continued to raise alarms for international observers on the treatment of asylum seekers. 

When a country with such an extensive human rights footprint refuses international review, it can, to the international eye, raise questions about the legitimacy of the nation as a whole, limiting its sovereignty and foreign influence. 

This brings to light another essential tension: the role of powerful democracies in shaping—or undermining—international norms. If the United States selectively participates in mechanisms like the UPR, what message does this send to emerging powers or authoritarian states? What does it reveal about the UN for letting it do so? 

Critics argue that it weakens the normative fabric of human rights as a whole, creating space for other states to justify non-cooperation or reinterpretation of global standards. Many liberalists or supporters of multilateralism may fear a potential domino effect, where disengagement by one major actor ripples across the international system.

In a world where controversial democracies and increased crises intensify the need for accountability, such power-moves by a global actor like the United States can test institutional resilience. Whether the United States chooses to reengage in 2026 will influence not only its own standing, but also the credibility of the human rights system itself, demonstrating the deeply-intertwined connection between domestic choices and global governance. 

Hannah Abdelshahid is a Freshman majoring in International Politics in the School of Foreign Service. She is from Cairo, Egypt.