In February 2025, Denmark introduced its first National Action Plan Against Racism (NAPAR), acknowledging a long-standing issue identified by human rights monitors. However, six months later, during the 52nd session of the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group in Geneva, the adequacy of the plan was questioned. Forty-four of the eighty-seven participating states expressed concerns about racial discrimination, with some doubting whether Denmark’s approach met the challenge’s scope.
The UPR, held on 7 May 2026, is a UN peer-review mechanism for human rights conducted every four to five years. During Denmark’s fourth-cycle review, discussions ranged from praise to sharp criticism, with racism being the prominent theme. Questions focused on Denmark’s definition of racism, the communities protected by the plan, and safeguards against exclusionary structures.
Denmark’s record was mixed. The government ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, limited solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure, and adopted the anti-racism plan. Belgium praised these steps alongside the 2024 ratification of ILO Convention 190 and a new rape definition. Norway and Finland also noted relevant achievements.
Despite this, calls for further action were prominent. Belgium recommended effective hate crime investigations, improved data collection, and dialogues with affected communities. Western European states commended Danish institutions but demanded structural reforms.
The NAPAR’s scope and omissions became focal points. Critiques centered on the lack of focus on Muslims, the absence of hate-crime data, continued profiling, the “parallel society” housing framework, and a lack of monitoring mechanisms.
Denmark’s neighbors voiced notable interventions. France suggested revising ethnic-based legislative provisions, Luxembourg called for prohibitions on profiling and improved reporting mechanisms, and Ireland urged updating the national action plan and establishing an independent rapporteur for anti-trafficking.
Countries like Canada urged adherence to court rulings on housing frameworks and called for trauma-informed mental health services for Indigenous communities. Australia demanded the repeal of discriminatory social housing regulations and increased protections for gender-based violence survivors.
Germany raised concerns about migrant return centers and proposed reviewing housing minors’ necessity in such facilities. The Netherlands and New Zealand recommended guidelines for sex characteristics and the full application of international conventions. Finland addressed algorithmic discrimination against marginalized groups.
Western interventions treated the NAPAR as a starting point requiring further development and independent verification.
States outside the Western bloc echoed similar concerns. Malaysia recommended reviewing discriminatory policies, and Rwanda called for improved data systems on hate crimes. Qatar detailed recommendations for eliminating reporting barriers, and Tunisia demanded the plan cover all minorities and address anti-Islam discourse.
Turkey expressed sharper critiques, demanding a dedicated action plan against Islamophobia. Venezuela and China highlighted concerns with the “parallel society” act and colonialism impacts on Indigenous peoples. Bangladesh, Iran, and DPRK criticized “non-Western” classifications as discriminatory.
A common demand was for standardized, disaggregated data, pressed by Belgium, Qatar, Ireland, Malaysia, and others. The lack of such data hinders policy evaluation.
The definition of racism became a contested issue. Several states noted the NAPAR lacks a clear definition. CERD and ECRI have called for disaggregated data collection and addressing anti-Muslim discrimination.
Civil society submissions paralleled state recommendations. For example, a joint submission by CAP Liberté de Conscience, EMISCO, and Youth for Human Rights Denmark noted NAPAR’s gaps, such as the omission of Muslims as a target group.
The Danish Institute for Human Rights supported expanding the plan with specific, measurable goals and addressing discrimination against all minorities, lending institutional weight to the concerns raised.
Denmark now faces a range of recommendations on racial discrimination, gender-based violence, migrant rights, and more. For NAPAR, key demands include defining racial discrimination, expanding minority coverage, establishing hate-crime data systems, and reviewing the housing framework.
The implementation phase stretches over four-and-a-half years, with states reporting progress. The UPR serves as a sustained pressure mechanism, aiming to shift policies over time.
For NGOs, this period offers a strategic window to monitor Denmark’s acceptance of recommendations and leverage international consensus for policy change. The convergence of global states on specific reforms creates a broad coalition beyond geopolitical divides.
The UPR has placed structural racism on the international agenda for Denmark. However, the true test lies in Copenhagen, where the government must decide whether to expand NAPAR’s scope, revise definitions, and ensure independent scrutiny.
The states have spoken; Denmark must now choose its course of action.
Leave a Reply