Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have actively participated in the policymaking process within international organizations (IOs) by providing policy information. But due to limited policy attention and agenda space, IOs are capable of accommodating some but not all NGO information. How do IOs decide which NGO information to be accepted on the international agenda? Leveraging a unique information-filtering mechanism in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ (OHCHR) preparation of summary reports that selectively incorporate information from NGO shadow reports during the United Nations Universal Periodic Review between 2008 and 2016, this article looks inside the “black box” of agenda setting in global governance. Using an original corpus of documents from OHCHR and more than 7000 advocacy organizations or coalitions, and a new method that quantifies OHCHR’s information gatekeeping behavior, I provide empirical support for the general claim that IOs are more likely to adopt NGO information provided by more reputable informants, expressed in neutral language, and supported by a greater number of organizations. These findings highlight the importance of IO agency in shaping the transnational advocacy agenda.

非政府组织 (NGO) 通过提供政策信息积极参与了国际组织 (IO) 的决策过程。但由于政策关注和议程空间有限，IO 能够容纳一些但不是全部的 NGO 信息。IO 如何决定哪些 NGO 信息在国际议程上被接受？利用联合国人权事务高级专员办事处 (OHCHR) 编写摘要报告的独特信息过滤机制，选择性地纳入 2008 年至 2016 年联合国普遍定期审议期间非政府组织影子报告中的信息，本文看起来全球治理议程设置的“黑匣子”。使用来自 OHCHR 和 7000 多个倡导组织或联盟的原始文件语料库，以及量化 OHCHR 信息守门行为的新方法，我为 IO 更有可能采用更有信誉的线人提供的非政府组织信息的普遍主张提供实证支持，以中性语言表达，并得到更多组织的支持。这些发现强调了 IO 机构在制定跨国宣传议程方面的重要性。