A REVISÃO PERIÓDICA UNIVERSAL COMO MECANISMO DE MONITORAMENTO DO DIREITO INTERNACIONAL HUMANITÁRIO: Estudo dos casos de Líbia, Somália e Mali

Abstract

This work studies how International Humanitarian Law is approached through the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review mechanism. The core of this research is based on the questioning of the capacity that a body and an instrument originally competent to deal with human rights issues can present to effectively contribute to the development od IHL. For this, it is developed as follows: initially, the UPR is explained in terms of its concept, objectives, functioning and criticisms; later, by observing their points of similarity and distinction, the relationship of complementarity existing between Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law is traced; then, there is the demonstration of the process by which IHL was inserted at the base of the mechanism; finally, there is a case study based on the three Review Cycles of Libya, Somalia and Mali. For its fulfillment, an inductive research is carried out through the bibliographic analysis of its first part, and the documental direct and indirect analysis of the recommendations made to the selected countries. Therefore, it is supported in the theoretical-practical method. As a result, the following obstacles are evidenced: the lack of uniformity and expertise of the delegations in dealing with IHL; the politicization that guides evaluations and recommendations about it; the generality with which these are mostly elaborated; and the uniquely reactive nature of the mechanism to violations of humanitarian law. It is concluded that, although International Humanitarian Law is a subject that attracts considerable engagement from the reviewing States, both characteristics related to the intergovernmental nature of the HRC and its high level of specificity limit the benefits provided to it by the Universal Periodic Review mechanism