Opinions of the Universal Periodic Review. The UPR is a mechanism by which UN member states give each other recommendations on human rights reforms. There was significant engagement on Nepal in the UPR session that took place in January 2021 including on gender discrimination in the law. Member states, UN Agencies and NGOs made multiple submissions, including separate submissions from UNHCR, FWLD, and the GCENR. A civil society actor who is very engaged on the citizenship issue in Nepal and utilizes international and national platforms, including CEDAW, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UPR, felt strongly that the UPR is very important to engage in, especially through multiple, joint submissions. Between 2018-2020 the Government of Nepal was a member of the HRC, which the civil society actor believed provided additional pressure on the government for their human rights record as highlighted in Box 27, on the previous page. The U.S. is one of several countries that has issued recommendations to governments on statelessness, including Nepal, where the U.S. expressed concern about “provisions within the constitution on citizenship that may discriminate against women and increase the risk of statelessness.” The GCENR participated in joint UPR submissions with civil society groups and coordinated UPR advocacy with the U.S. mission. One key informant from Thailand noted that while the UPR had been used effectively by the Swedish government on other human rights issues in Thailand, no recommendations had been made by other countries to address statelessness in Thailand. The UPR can be an effective way for the USG and UNHCR to make change on statelessness, however it must be done as part of a joint effort with civil society. Box 28: Engagement in Human Rights Council “Prior to 2012 there had never been a significant Human Rights Council resolution on statelessness or on nationality rights. So PRM considered the 2012 Human Rights Resolution quite groundbreaking. In 2016 the main reason that the Human Rights Resolution was such a success was because it engaged so many countries. In the end, 107 states came on board including African countries that had discrimination in their nationality laws. By them signing it really opened an opportunity for advocacy to change their laws. Another positive outcome of the resolution was that a Special Rapporteur got seized on the issue and produced a report further highlighting the issue.” Opinions of Human Rights Council Resolutions. In 2016, the U.S. co-sponsored Resolution 32/7 on women’s equal nationality rights in law and in practice that attracted 107 cosponsors, including the Group of African States. U.S. leadership on this resolution benefited from engagement with NGO advocates and coordination with UNHCR to craft strong language and mobilize support from HRC member states. As mentioned above, the Group of Friends was also very engaged in helping to support the resolution, as highlighted by a PRM staff member (see Box 28). A U.S. diplomat recalled how much work had gone into getting the 2016 HRC together and felt it was a success at the time. “I think there were a core group of states that made it a priority issue and when you have the right states making an issue a priority issue in the multilateral system then success like that is achievable.” He highlighted the importance of follow through to make sure the resolution is used at the country level. While in 2017 there was an expert workshop on best practices to promote women’s equal nationality rights in law and in practice,26 it is not clear from this evaluation how much impact the resolution has had at the country level. The U.S. left the HRC in 2018. While staying engaged, not being a member-imposed limitation on its effectiveness, such as not having a U.S. Ambassador in the seat at the plenary sessions and not being able to vote. In 2021, the U.S. rejoined the HRC, providing more opportunities to engage in the future. 26 Eight experts and approximately 70 participants attended the workshop, including State delegations, civil society organizations, United Nations agencies and persons who had been affected by discrimination against women in nationality laws. One of the members of the working group on discrimination against women in laws and in practice also participated as an expert. For more information see https://undocs.org/A/HRC/36/30 20