You scratch my back, and I scratch yours: Autocratic reciprocity in the politics of naming and shaming

What drives some authoritarian states to engage in more naming and shaming of human rights violations than others? The Universal Periodic Review is a unique process requiring all UN members to participate in peer review on human rights issues. It has already finished its third cycle with active participation from all members since 2008. Although both democracies and authoritarian regimes have engaged in peer reviews on human rights issues, few studies explore the influence of different regimes on naming and shaming behavior on human rights issues. In this paper, we argue that authoritarian states use the peer review process as a means of legitimation. We expect authoritarian states to be more lenient towards other authoritarian regimes to increase their legitimacy, while democracies are likely to be impartial to shame human rights abusers. This paper examines how the relational politics of naming and shaming behaviors on human rights issues change as a function of political regimes. We test our expectations using a large-N sample of dyads. We compare the peer reviews of the Universal Periodic Review between 2008 and 2020 with different dyads of democracies and authoritarian regimes.