Abstract
ABSTRACT This article examines how states positioned in the middle of the international status hierarchy behave in the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR). While the UPR was established as a cooperative mechanism to move away from confrontational naming and shaming, in practice it has become a reputational arena where states strategically calibrate their engagement. I argue that mid‐status states pursue a logic of status–visibility optimization: They maximize participation to enhance recognition but issue only moderate recommendations to minimize reputational risks. Using original data of UPR recommendations and statistical analyses, the study finds that mid‐status states are the most active participants but the least severe critics. This pattern produces what is called “vanilla victories,” which is visible but cautious performance that enhances the state's standing without significantly advancing human rights. These findings contribute to debates on status‐seeking and international human rights institutions and highlight the limitations of the UPR as a mechanism for substantive rights protection.