My research explores states' participation in the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) as recommenders in conjunction with their level of commitments to the UN nine core human rights instruments. Briefly capturing the unique institutional features of the UPR's interactive dialogue, and taking into consideration recommending states' resource constraints as well as their human rights agendas, I argue that states' legal commitments to other international human rights standards empower them to make more meaningful recommendations to peer states. However, the substance of meaningful recommendations differs drastically between democratic and nondemocratic reviewing states. Both democracies and nondemocracies that have ratified a higher number of human rights treaties are inclined to urge peer states to join, to deepen commitments, or to take specific measures regarding such international human rights instruments. However, unlike their democratic counterparts, those nondemocracies do not further propose that reviewed states carry out specific domestic legal, institutional, and policy reforms.
