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?