The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a mechanism of the United Nations Human Rights Council through which the human rights record of every UN member state is reviewed on a cyclical basis. Bhutan has undergone multiple UPR cycles, receiving recommendations from fellow member states on issues including the Bhutanese refugee crisis, minority rights, press freedom, gender equality, and ratification of international human rights treaties. Bhutan's responses to these recommendations — accepting some and merely "noting" others — reveal the boundaries of the government's willingness to engage with international human rights standards.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a peer-review mechanism established by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2006, under which the human rights record of every UN member state is examined on a roughly four-and-a-half-year cycle. The process involves the submission of a national report by the state under review, reports from independent UN experts and treaty bodies, and submissions from civil society organizations. During the review session in Geneva, fellow member states pose questions and make recommendations, which the reviewed state may accept, partially accept, or "note" (effectively decline). Bhutan has participated in multiple UPR cycles, and its reviews have generated significant attention to issues including the Bhutanese refugee crisis, the rights of Lhotshampa and other minorities, press freedom, and the ratification of core international human rights instruments.
The UPR process provides one of the few formal international forums in which Bhutan's human rights record is subjected to systematic scrutiny. While the mechanism is non-binding and relies on peer pressure rather than enforcement, the recommendations generated through the UPR and Bhutan's responses to them offer a revealing window into the Bhutanese government's priorities, its willingness to engage with international norms, and the areas where it considers its sovereignty non-negotiable.
Bhutan's UPR Cycles
Bhutan's first UPR took place in 2009, shortly after the country's transition to a constitutional monarchy. The second cycle occurred in 2014, and the third in 2019. Each review generated a substantial number of recommendations from participating states, covering a wide range of human rights issues. The Bhutanese government submitted national reports for each cycle that emphasized the country's progress in democratic governance, its commitment to Gross National Happiness, and its efforts to expand access to education, healthcare, and social services[1].
Civil society submissions — primarily from international organizations, as domestic civil society in Bhutan is extremely limited — painted a more critical picture. Organizations including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and diaspora advocacy groups submitted reports highlighting the refugee issue, restrictions on press freedom, the situation of stateless persons, and the cultural rights of minorities. These submissions ensured that issues downplayed or omitted in the government's national report were nonetheless part of the review discussion.
Key Recommendations Received
Across its UPR cycles, Bhutan has received recommendations spanning a broad range of human rights concerns. The most significant and recurring categories include:
Refugee issue and right of return: Multiple states have recommended that Bhutan facilitate the voluntary repatriation of Bhutanese refugees, engage in dialogue with Nepal and the international community on durable solutions, and provide citizenship documentation to stateless persons within the country. These recommendations have consistently been among the most contentious, and Bhutan has uniformly "noted" (declined) them, maintaining that the refugee issue has been resolved through the third-country resettlement program and that repatriation is not under consideration.
Ratification of international treaties: Bhutan has been repeatedly urged to ratify core human rights instruments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). As of 2024, Bhutan has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), but has not acceded to the ICCPR, ICESCR, or ICERD[2].
Press freedom and freedom of expression: Several states have recommended that Bhutan strengthen legal protections for journalists, enact freedom-of-information legislation, and take measures to address the culture of self-censorship documented by organizations such as Reporters Without Borders. Bhutan has generally accepted recommendations related to media development while noting those that imply criticism of the existing media environment.
Minority rights and non-discrimination: Recommendations have addressed the rights of the Lhotshampa population, the situation of stateless persons, and the need for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. Bhutan has typically noted these recommendations, emphasizing that its Constitution prohibits discrimination and that its development policies benefit all citizens equally.
Bhutan's Responses: Accepted vs. Noted
A distinctive feature of Bhutan's UPR participation has been the pattern of its responses. The government has generally accepted recommendations that align with its existing policy priorities — such as expanding access to education and healthcare, promoting gender equality, combating human trafficking, and strengthening the judiciary — while "noting" (effectively rejecting) recommendations on the most politically sensitive issues, particularly the refugee crisis, minority rights, and the ratification of the ICCPR and ICESCR.
In its third-cycle review in 2019, Bhutan received 228 recommendations from 99 countries. It accepted 152 recommendations and noted 76. The accepted recommendations largely pertained to socioeconomic rights, environmental protection, and institutional capacity-building — areas where compliance did not require fundamental changes to the political order. The noted recommendations disproportionately concerned civil and political rights, the refugee issue, and the ratification of treaties that would subject Bhutan to binding international monitoring mechanisms[3].
This pattern reveals a consistent strategy: engagement with the UPR process as a demonstration of international good faith, combined with firm resistance to any recommendations that would require the government to address the legacy of the Lhotshampa expulsion, expand political rights for minorities, or submit to international oversight mechanisms with enforcement capacity.
Civil Society and Diaspora Engagement
The UPR process has provided an important platform for Bhutanese diaspora organizations and international human rights groups to bring attention to issues that receive little coverage in Bhutan's domestic media. Organizations representing the Bhutanese refugee community have submitted stakeholder reports documenting ongoing statelessness, the psychological impacts of displacement, and the continued denial of the right of return. International organizations have highlighted the gap between Bhutan's international image as a peaceful, GNH-promoting kingdom and the realities of minority rights within the country.
However, the impact of civil society engagement in the UPR has been limited by the non-binding nature of the process and by Bhutan's ability to simply "note" unfavorable recommendations without consequence. The absence of a robust domestic civil society within Bhutan — where independent human rights organizations face significant barriers to registration and operation — further limits the UPR's effectiveness as a tool for domestic accountability.
Significance and Limitations
The UPR process offers a structured, multilateral forum for examining Bhutan's human rights record, and the documentation generated through each cycle provides a valuable reference for researchers, advocates, and policymakers. The reviews have created a detailed public record of the international community's concerns about Bhutan, and have ensured that issues such as the refugee crisis and minority rights cannot be entirely erased from diplomatic discourse.
At the same time, the UPR's limitations are evident in the Bhutanese case. The mechanism lacks enforcement power, and Bhutan has faced no consequences for noting recommendations on its most serious human rights challenges. The government's selective acceptance of recommendations allows it to demonstrate engagement with the international human rights system while avoiding accountability on the most fundamental issues. For the Lhotshampa diaspora and their advocates, the UPR remains a valuable but insufficient tool — one that documents injustice without the power to remedy it.
References
- OHCHR. "Universal Periodic Review — Bhutan." https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/upr/bt-index
- OHCHR. "Status of Ratification: Bhutan." UN Treaty Body Database. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/
- UPR Info. "Bhutan — Session 32, January 2019." https://www.upr-info.org/en/review/Bhutan/Session-32---January-2019
Contributed by Anonymous Contributor, Manchester, New Hampshire
Test Your Knowledge
Think you know about this topic? Try a quick quiz!
Help improve this article
Do you have personal knowledge about this topic? Were you there? Your experience matters. BhutanWiki is built by the community, for the community.
Anonymous contributions welcome. No account required.