Patryk I. Labuda
Photo credit: International Nuremberg Principles Academy 2017
In addition to an award-winning book with Oxford University Press, my work has featured in the Yale Journal of International Law, Leiden Journal of International Law, European Journal of International Law, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, and leading academic presses (here). I am a regular contributor to the mainstream and social media (here).
I am an assistant professor of international law and international relations at Central European University in Vienna. I was previously an assistant professor of (international) criminal law at the University of Amsterdam Law School, and have also held positions at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, New York University School of Law, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, University of Zurich, Polish Academy of Sciences, and Free University of Berlin.
Specialized in international (criminal) law, peace and security studies, and global history, I have 14 years of work and research experience in and on Africa, with a regional focus on the law, politics and history of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, and the Sudans. My current focus is on shifts in the global legal order and relations between the 'Global South' and 'Global East', especially Africa and Eastern Europe.
In 2024, I was elected to a four-year term on the Board of the European Society of International Law.
Je travaille en français et en anglais. Wykładam po polsku.
Follow my work on X (former Twitter).
Al Jazeera
Radio France Internationale
Just Security
Justice Info
My book International Criminal Tribunals & Domestic Accountability. In the Court's Shadow (2023) can be ordered at OUP and Amazon.
Winner of International Law Association American Branch 'Best First Book Award'.
More on the book's arguments at book project and a few blurbs below:
'deftly exposes the paradox of the increasing turn to domestic prosecutions of international crimes... Labuda’s thoughtful book is a must read for anyone interested in the future of international criminal law.'
Charles C. Jalloh, Distinguished University Professor, Florida International University
'In offering both broad historical context and fine-grained case study illustration, Labuda expands our understanding of complementarity in both theory and practice. Whatever one's opinion about the appropriate relationship between the International Criminal Court and national judiciaries, this book is an eye-opening and essential read.'
Kim Thuy Seelinger, Research Associate Professor, Washington University; Special Adviser on Sexual Violence in Conflict to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court
'a timely book...[that] assesses the relocation of the anti-impunity agenda closer to the locus of the crimes at the state level, and interrogates the important role that societal actors have to play in engaging national institutions in pursuing redress and accountability for atrocities. This is a superlative study that needs to be engaged with by analysts, policy-makers and practitioners of international criminal justice.'
Tim Murithi, Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, Cape Town, Professor of African Studies, University of the Free State and Stellenbosch University in South Africa
'Labuda’s work is to law what Caravaggio’s chiaroscuro is to the canvas – Labuda illuminates, places candles in the darkness, and reveals what is obscured. This excellent book offers wise counsel about how international criminal law enforcement can combat the increasingly illiberal swagger of our political times.'
Mark A. Drumbl, Class of 1975 Alumni Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University
Double Standards and International Law Workshop, Geneva May 2025
See call for papers (deadline 15 October 2024).
States, international organizations, and non-state actors profess commitments to legal principles, such as accountability, human rights, or sovereign equality, yet act in ways that contradict these ideals. In response to the perception that international law is selectively applied, claims of double standards are ever-present. Accusations of double standards serve as a rallying call to promote consistency and the equitable application of international law; alternatively, they are used to deflect criticism or avoid accountability. The resulting discussion of double standards intersects with and implicates other principles of international law, including fairness, equality, justice, and the rule of law. What is the function of the double standards critique in international law, and how is it different from other critiques of injustice?
While the debate over double standards in international law is not new, it has become more pronounced in the wake of Russia’s 2022 re-invasion of Ukraine and amid the ongoing war in Gaza. Over the past years, critiques of double standards have often invoked accusations of hypocrisy, selectivity, whataboutism, or tu quoque (‘you too’) objections, challenging the legitimacy of international norms and global-governance actors in ways that have garnered significant attention from international lawyers and the wider public. Can double standards be meaningfully discussed in a universal sense, and how do we account for nuances across various subfields of international law? What are productive methods for studying double standards? And how can insights from other disciplines enhance our understanding of double standards in relation to notions of effectiveness, authority, and legitimacy of international law?
From Ukraine and Gaza to Myanmar and Sudan, perceptions of double standards have fueled widespread criticism of an international legal system seen as structurally favoring some over others. At the same time, amid globalization's association with unequal outcomes, authoritarian and populist actors have sought influence by challenging the legitimacy of the post-Second World War legal order. To what extent can historical analogies, for instance of the post-World War II period or the decolonization process, help us understand the current moment? As governments and civil society attempt to reshape global governance and multilateralism, what is included and excluded from debates over double standards, and how does such a framing contribute to solutions or, alternatively, reinforce existing inequities?
Stay in touch - sign up below for periodic updates about new articles, posts and other news
