- International Law, Transitional Justice, International Criminal Law, International Human Rights Law, Legal History, American Legal and Constitutional History, and 23 moreInternational Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Court, International Criminal Justice, History of International Law, Public International Law, International Crimes, Peacekeeping, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, Peace and Conflict Studies, Empirical Legal Research, Constitutional Law, Constitutional History, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Sudan, Rwanda, Rwandan Genocide, Sierra Leone, Hybrid Courts and Courts of Mixed Jurisdiction, American Civil War, Southern Studies (U.S. South), and Environmental Sustainabilityedit
- Patryk Labuda specializes in international (criminal) law, human rights, and peace and security studies. He has 14 ye... morePatryk Labuda specializes in international (criminal) law, human rights, and peace and security studies. He has 14 years of work and research experience in Africa, with a regional focus on the law, politics and history of the DR Congo, Central African Republic, Sudan and South Sudan. Labuda's current focus is on shifts in the global order through the lens of the Russo-Ukraine war and from a historical, post-colonial Global South-East(ern European) perspective. In addition to various scholarly works, he is a regular contributor to traditional (TV, radio, newspapers) and social media (Twitter, podcasts and blogs). More at www.patryklabuda.comedit
In the 1990s, the promise of justice for atrocity crimes was associated with the revival of international criminal tribunals. More recently, however, there has been a renewed emphasis on domestic accountability for international crimes... more
In the 1990s, the promise of justice for atrocity crimes was associated with the revival of international criminal tribunals. More recently, however, there has been a renewed emphasis on domestic accountability for international crimes across the globe. In identifying a 'complementarity turn', a paradigm shift toward domestic accountability in the field of international criminal justice, this book investigates how the shadow of international criminal tribunals influences the treatment of serious crimes at the national level.
Drawing on research in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sierra Leone, this book develops a tripartite framework to analyse how states and tribunals work with, despite, or against one another in the fight against impunity. While international prosecutors and judges use the principle of complementarity to foster cooperation and decrease tension with government actors, Patryk Labuda argues that too much deference by tribunals toward states reduces the likelihood of accountability and may enable national elites to consolidate authoritarian power.
By interrogating how international accountability stakeholders relate to their domestic counterparts, International Criminal Tribunals and Domestic Accountability advocates improvements to tribunals' institutional design and more dynamic interactions with states to strengthen the enforcement of international criminal law.
Drawing on research in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sierra Leone, this book develops a tripartite framework to analyse how states and tribunals work with, despite, or against one another in the fight against impunity. While international prosecutors and judges use the principle of complementarity to foster cooperation and decrease tension with government actors, Patryk Labuda argues that too much deference by tribunals toward states reduces the likelihood of accountability and may enable national elites to consolidate authoritarian power.
By interrogating how international accountability stakeholders relate to their domestic counterparts, International Criminal Tribunals and Domestic Accountability advocates improvements to tribunals' institutional design and more dynamic interactions with states to strengthen the enforcement of international criminal law.
Research Interests: International Relations, International Law, International Criminal Law, International Criminal Court, Transitional Justice, and 11 moreSierra Leone, International Courts And Tribunals, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Authoritarianism, Peacebuilding, International Criminal Justice, Sociolegal studies, Rwandan Genocide, International Crimes, and International Criminal Procedure
Contemporary UN peace operations are expected to implement ambitious protection of civilians (POC) mandates while helping host states to prevent conflict and build peace. Reconciling people-oriented POC mandates and the state-centric... more
Contemporary UN peace operations are expected to implement ambitious protection of civilians (POC) mandates while helping host states to prevent conflict and build peace. Reconciling people-oriented POC mandates and the state-centric logic of UN-mandated interventions ranks among the greatest challenges facing peace operations today. This report explores how peace operations implement POC mandates when working with, despite, or against the host state. It analyzes the opportunities, challenges, and risks that arise when peacekeepers work with host states and identifies best practices for leveraging UN support to national authorities. The report shows that peacekeeping personnel in each mission need to decide how to make the most of the UN’s strengths, mitigate risks to civilians, and maintain the support of government partners for mutually desirable POC goals. It offers seven recommendations for managing POC and host-state support going forward
Research Interests: International Relations, Peace and Conflict Studies, International Law, United Nations, Peacekeeping, and 5 moreInternational Humanitarian Law and Protection of Civilians, UN peacekeeping operations, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict Situations, and Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict
This article analyses states’ divergent responses to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and their impact on the global legal order. Western states have supported Ukraine by providing military aid, imposing sanctions, and advocating... more
This article analyses states’ divergent responses to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and their impact on the global legal order. Western states have supported Ukraine by providing military aid, imposing sanctions, and advocating accountability. However, the non-Western world has exhibited ambivalence with many states critiquing Western double standards in violating the prohibition of force, emphasizing sanctions’ negative effects on poorer nations, and advocating reform of multilateral institutions. Moving beyond three narratives about post-2022 developments – the idea of a Zeitenwende, the end of Western hegemony and the rise of the Global South, and a contest of democracies versus autocracies – this article argues that the Russo-Ukrainian war has amplified contestation over international law’s universality, yet there is more continuity than rupture in states’ normative positions in core areas of international law. Rather than a Zeitenwende in international law, which may in fact be a Eurocentric framing of post-2022 developments, the Russo-Ukrainian war has accelerated shifts underway prior to the 2022 invasion. The invasion has put the spotlight on divergent regional interpretations of international law, but claims of emerging multipolarity in international law flatten the complexities of individual states’ normative positions, which mix legal principle, economic self-interest, historical precedent and shifting political alliances. A more regionalized approach may be emerging in areas like international criminal law, but perceptions of fragmentation and rhetorical denunciations of double standards should not be prematurely conflated with multipolarity in international law, understood as an alternative normative ordering centred around regional hegemons like China, Turkey or India.
Research Interests:
While Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been met with condemnation, the proposed Special Tribunal for Aggression has received mixed reactions. Eastern European states support aggression prosecutions of the Russian leadership,... more
While Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been met with condemnation, the proposed Special Tribunal for Aggression has received mixed reactions. Eastern European states support aggression prosecutions of the Russian leadership, Western powers are cautious, while parts of the non-Western world seem concerned about double standards in the enforcement of international criminal law. By adopting a post-colonial, Eastern European perspective, this article assesses the arguments for and against the establishment of a special tribunal. It foregrounds Ukraine’s history of foreign subjugation to illuminate the counter-hegemonic potential of aggression prosecutions and argues that Russia’s ‘de-Nazification’ rhetoric speaks in favor of a reckoning with Nuremberg’s distorted legacy and neo-imperial phantasies of a ‘Russkiy mir’. The article nuances critiques of selectivity that overlook Ukraine’s liminal place in the global order as a post-colonial state straddling boundaries between North and South, East and West, Europe and Asia. By emphasizing small and weak states’ advocacy for the criminalization of aggression before and after 2022, it suggests that the tribunal may provide inspiration for anti-imperial and counter-hegemonic struggles in other parts of the world, while decolonizing thinking about the Soviet Union’s benevolent role in the Second World War and the Cold War. Against the backdrop of ‘mental maps’ of Eastern Europe and the ‘semi-peripheral’ status of the ‘Global East’ in the global order, the article considers also why Ukraine has embraced international law as an emancipatory tool in its struggle against Russia, and how this relates to Eastern European states’ advocacy of an ‘international’ over a ‘hybrid’ tribunal. In conclusion, Eastern European states are encouraged to embrace the counter-hegemonic aspirations of other weaker states in the global order.
Research Interests:
Russia's full-blown invasion of Ukraine has reinvigorated the debate over international criminal law's selectivity. While many have welcomed the renewed interest in accountability for international crimes in the wake of the 'Ukraine... more
Russia's full-blown invasion of Ukraine has reinvigorated the debate over international criminal law's selectivity. While many have welcomed the renewed interest in accountability for international crimes in the wake of the 'Ukraine moment', others have emphasized double standards in the enforcement of international criminal law, including a lack of accountability for Western violations and disproportionate attention to European victims. This article interrogates the master narratives about international criminal law's post-Ukraine selectivity and complicates accusations of bias by emphasizing Ukraine's liminal status in the global order and the cross-border nature of aggression as an explanatory factor for differentiated responses from states. It suggests that concerns about an invidious 'Ukraine effect' on international criminal law enforcement are less persuasive after the International Criminal Court's decade-long conflict with the African Union, and that a decentring of investigations to Eurasia should be construed not only as a moment of soul-searching but also as a welcome opportunity to rebalance the scales of justice. The article encourages international criminal law stakeholders to move beyond critique that unwittingly essentializes Eurocentric assumptions and to devise a more compelling vision of global criminal law enforcement that challenges crimes and inequalities both between and within states.
Research Interests:
The UN Security Council now regularly deploys peacekeeping missions with robust mandates to protect civilians and encourages their proactive implementation, including by using force. While this turn to robust civilian protection is... more
The UN Security Council now regularly deploys peacekeeping missions with robust mandates to protect civilians and encourages their proactive implementation, including by using force. While this turn to robust civilian protection is usually celebrated, the legal parameters of using force are rarely scrutinised, with scholars usually focusing narrowly on self-defence and UN policy to justify mandate implementation. By analysing the relationship between peacekeeping mandates and international law in light of the shift from defensive to proactive peacekeeping, this article argues that the legality of using force for civilian protection purposes must be reconciled not only with authorisations to use force in Security Council resolutions but also with human rights law, which imposes temporal conditions for lawful deprivations of the right to life outside the conduct of hostilities. Drawing on the UN’s current practice of protecting civilians in hostile environments, this article attempts to reconcile proactive civilian-oriented peacekeeping with the concept of imminence as understood in human rights law.
Research Interests:
Contemporary UN peacekeeping missions often have Chapter VII mandates and wide authorizations to use force, notably to protect civilians. Since 2010, however, the Security Council has created a new generation of stabilization missions to... more
Contemporary UN peacekeeping missions often have Chapter VII mandates and wide authorizations to use force, notably to protect civilians. Since 2010, however, the Security Council has created a new generation of stabilization missions to support host governments. Peacekeepers in these missions are expected not only to protect civilians but also to combat armed groups, sometimes jointly with state security forces. While this may seem like just the next step in the UN’s gradual drift from traditional to robust peacekeeping, this article argues that stabilization constitutes a more radical departure from conventional doctrines on the use of force by peacekeepers. In fact, stabilization should be understood as a distinct form of UN-mandated intervention by invitation.
Research Interests: Peacekeeping, Use of Force, Peacebuilding, UN Charter, International Humanitarian Law and Protection of Civilians, and 6 moreUse of force in international law and international relations, Collective Security Theory, UN peacekeeping operations, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, and Stabilization and Reconstruction
2019 marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide and of the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). After prosecuting seventy-three people, including high-ranking politicians and military... more
2019 marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide and of the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). After prosecuting seventy-three people, including high-ranking politicians and military leaders, the Rwanda Tribunal closed its doors in 2015. Together with its sister tribunal, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the ICTR is considered one of the first generation ad hoc tribunals mandated to bring justice to countries emerging from conflict. This review essay examines four books to take stock of the scholarly debate on the ICTR's performance. After analyzing the Tribunal's achievements and shortcomings, it explains that scholarly assessments of the ICTR rely on two different analytical lenses-a national or international perspective-to make claims about the roles of international criminal tribunals generally. The essay then discusses the ICTR's interactions with other post-genocide justice mechanisms in Rwanda and the compatibility of concurrent judicial responses to mass violence. It concludes by noting that interpretations of the ICTR's performance continue to evolve, reflecting prevailing ideas about the goals and limitations of international criminal tribunals within the field of transitional justice.
Research Interests:
A variety of human rights dilemmas were left unresolved in Rome. Under complementarity, the International Criminal Court (ICC) must defer to domestic proceedings if a state is handling the same case and the national authorities are not... more
A variety of human rights dilemmas were left unresolved in Rome. Under complementarity, the International Criminal Court (ICC) must defer to domestic proceedings if a state is handling the same case and the national authorities are not ‘unable or unwilling’ to prosecute the same person. Much ink has been spilt on Article 17 of the Rome Statute and the resulting case law; however, less understood is the flipside of complementarity: under what circumstances is a state not allowed to prosecute defendants over whom the ICC has already exercised jurisdiction? Against the backdrop of the ICC’s trial of Germain Katanga, the article examines the prohibition of ne bis in idem, its relationship to complementarity, and the relevance of fair trial guarantees in the Rome Statute. This topic is likely to generate further controversy as the likelihood of secondary domestic trials against ICC defendants increases, as seen in the cases of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Jean-Pierre Bemba.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The Special Criminal Court in the Central African Republic can be viewed in two ways. The optimistic view is that it is a vindication of the idea that the international community should complement the efforts of states in the fight... more
The Special Criminal Court in the Central African Republic can be viewed in two ways. The optimistic view is that it is a vindication of the idea that the international community should complement the efforts of states in the fight against impunity. The pessimistic view is that its establishment represents the International Criminal Court’s failure to catalyze accountability at the national level. Against the backdrop of these two opposing narratives, this article examines the main legal features of this new ‘hybrid’ court and its relationship to the principle of complementarity enshrined in the ICC Statute. It addresses the following questions: the hybrid court’s legal basis under Central African law, its jurisdictional mandate, the mixed composition of its staff, immunities and amnesties, and the Special Criminal Court’s concurrent jurisdiction with the International Criminal Court. The article suggests that, although it is a promising example of international-national cooperation, the Special Criminal Court calls into question legal and systemic assumptions underpinning complementarity, the principle that gives states priority in prosecuting international crimes, which in turn raises questions about the relevance of complementarity in analogous conflict and post-conflict situations.
Research Interests: International Law, International Criminal Law, International Criminal Court, Peacekeeping, Central African Republic Politics, and 6 moreInternational Criminal Justice, UN peacekeeping operations, Complementarity, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, International Criminal Procedure, and Central African Republic
Hybrid tribunals usually operate alongside other judicial and non-judicial bodies with similar accountability functions. In particular, a hybrid tribunal can share jurisdictional powers with (ordinary) national courts, one or more... more
Hybrid tribunals usually operate alongside other judicial and non-judicial bodies with similar accountability functions. In particular, a hybrid tribunal can share jurisdictional powers with (ordinary) national courts, one or more international (criminal) tribunal(s), a truth commission, or other investigative and prosecutorial bodies. When the mandates of different institutions overlap, there is a need to identify and regulate relations between them. Ideally, legal rules embedded within each institution’s mandate minimize a duplication of tasks, prevent unnecessary conflict, encourage cooperation, and maximize cross-fertilization. This chapter argues that the term ‘complementarity’, which is often invoked to describe questions of institutional design, is an unhelpful way of conceptualizing relations between hybrid tribunals and other judicial and non-judicial institutions. Drawing on examples from the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, it explains why the International Criminal Court’s jurisdictional framework generates confusion and uncertainty over who enjoys priority and who has decision-making power. Other concepts and rules, for instance primacy, deferral, and subsidiarity, delineate the powers and functions of different institutions more clearly, generating healthier interactions between different transitional justice mechanisms in the long run.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article explores the ICC's impact on domestic judicial reform and the rule of law in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Drawing on empirical research conducted in Congo, it assesses to what extent domestic normative,... more
This article explores the ICC's impact on domestic judicial reform and the rule of law in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Drawing on empirical research conducted in Congo, it assesses to what extent domestic normative, institutional and judicial practices have adjusted to international standards. The following variables are considered: (1) substantive criminal law, including witness and victim protection norms, (2) domestic criminal procedure, including modes of liability; (3) judicial practice, especially rates of domestic prosecutions for international crimes; (4) judicial and institutional capacity-building; and lastly (5) contextual elements that influence cooperation and complementarity. Against the backdrop of the ICC's intervention in the DRC, the article critically assesses assumptions about the ICC's complementarity regime and its ability to foster respect for the rule of law at the national level.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article in the Max Planck Encyclopedia examines the history, the doctrinal and legal aspects, and the main challenges facing United Nations-mandated peace operations. It also explores how the practice of peacekeeping and peace... more
This article in the Max Planck Encyclopedia examines the history, the doctrinal and legal aspects, and the main challenges facing United Nations-mandated peace operations. It also explores how the practice of peacekeeping and peace enforcement has gradually merged while remaining doctrinally and legally distinct.
Research Interests:
This chapter assesses when and how war crimes trials emerged as the primary method of sanctioning law of war violations. It argues that the rise of individual criminal accountability in the late 19th century should be viewed as a... more
This chapter assesses when and how war crimes trials emerged as the primary method of sanctioning law of war violations. It argues that the rise of individual criminal accountability in the late 19th century should be viewed as a counterpoint to a separate and overlooked process of delegitimizing belligerent reprisals. Taken together, these two phenomena are part of the history of individualization and humanization of international law in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Research Interests:
This article in the Max Planck Encyclopedia explores the contents, principles and historical significance of the Lieber Code. Known also as 'the first modern codification of the laws of war', the Code was drafted by Francis Lieber to... more
This article in the Max Planck Encyclopedia explores the contents, principles and historical significance of the Lieber Code. Known also as 'the first modern codification of the laws of war', the Code was drafted by Francis Lieber to regulate the conduct of the Union Army in the American Civil War.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The global fallout from Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine has revealed contested memories of imperialism, colonialism and oppression in different parts of the world. For Ukrainians and other peoples from the former Soviet... more
The global fallout from Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine has revealed contested memories of imperialism, colonialism and oppression in different parts of the world. For Ukrainians and other peoples from the former Soviet space, Russia’s invasion constitutes imperial and colonial expansion by a revanchist hegemon who never came to terms with the collapse of the 20th century’s ‘last empire’. At the same time, some Global South actors view Russian actions on the global stage through an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial lens, echoing the Soviet Union’s struggle against Western powers during the Cold War. While the latter perspective effaces the Soviets’ subjugation of peoples across Eastern Europe and central Asia, Eastern Europeans’ fragmentary understanding of Western rule across the Global South generates misunderstandings and missed opportunities in their mutual relations.
Against the backdrop of divergent memories of imperialism, colonialism and oppression across the Global South(s) and the Global East(s), this initiative of the ‘Memocracy’ project aims to begin a conversation about the shared histories, common struggles and points of divergence between Eastern Europe and the Global South. It will address topics like transregional memory of genocide and crimes against humanity, multilateral cooperation beyond the West (East-South, East-East, South-South), and anti-imperial international law through the United Nations, International Court of Justice, and other global governance institutions. Although Eastern Europeans have fewer historical ties to Africa, South America and (parts of) Asia than their western counterparts from the ‘old continent’, this workshop moves beyond Europe to globalize the study of law and memory, while beginning a dialogue between ‘east’ and ‘south’ to build understanding of their mutual trajectories in time and space.
Against the backdrop of divergent memories of imperialism, colonialism and oppression across the Global South(s) and the Global East(s), this initiative of the ‘Memocracy’ project aims to begin a conversation about the shared histories, common struggles and points of divergence between Eastern Europe and the Global South. It will address topics like transregional memory of genocide and crimes against humanity, multilateral cooperation beyond the West (East-South, East-East, South-South), and anti-imperial international law through the United Nations, International Court of Justice, and other global governance institutions. Although Eastern Europeans have fewer historical ties to Africa, South America and (parts of) Asia than their western counterparts from the ‘old continent’, this workshop moves beyond Europe to globalize the study of law and memory, while beginning a dialogue between ‘east’ and ‘south’ to build understanding of their mutual trajectories in time and space.
Research Interests:
Double standards are ubiquitous within the study and practice of international law. Examples abound as states speak abstractly about the need for accountability and their commitment to international law but in practice act inconsistently,... more
Double standards are ubiquitous within the study and practice of international law. Examples abound as states speak abstractly about the need for accountability and their commitment to international law but in practice act inconsistently, for example, in applying human rights standards, combatting transnational and international crimes, or making and enforcing the rules that govern trade and development. As wars continue to grip parts of Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, many openly question or seek to remake features of the international system, resurrecting old and raising new challenges for global governance and multilateralism. With the United Nations, World Bank and other multilateral bodies struggling for legitimacy, and globalization increasingly associated with unequal outcomes, authoritarian governments and populist movements around the world have reasserted their authority inter alia by challenging the legitimacy of the post-Second World War legal order. It is argued increasingly that a Western-dominated rules-based or liberal international order favors some over others, with expressions of double standards framed as hypocrisy, whataboutism, tu quoque arguments, or other variants of inconsistency between rhetoric and practice. Writing at the end of the Cold War, Thomas Franck observed famously that as international lawyers are freed from the constraints of defensive ontology, the most important question before them was whether international law could be fair. Thirty years later, despite the prevalence of double standards in international legal practice and the ubiquity of the perceived duplicity, there has been little treatment of how double standards operate in and impact international law. Yet it seems that double standards pose a risk to international law in new and notable ways that have largely gone unremarked in international legal scholarship.
Research Interests:
The war in Ukraine is widely seen as a turning point in international affairs. In addition to disrupting the lives of millions of Ukrainians, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has had direct and indirect impacts on people, states,... more
The war in Ukraine is widely seen as a turning point in international affairs. In addition to disrupting the lives of millions of Ukrainians, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has had direct and indirect impacts on people, states, and the global legal order. While the war has been met with unprecedented 'Western' solidarity, including in the form of extensive sanctions, their downstream effects on food and energy security have produced backlash from many non-Western states, which continue to trade with Russia. Although some nominally non-aligned governments, notably India and China, have warned against President Putin's nuclear sabre-rattling, some states also point to Western double standards in violating the non-intervention norm, hesitate to impose coercive measures against Russia, and advocate reform of multilateral institutions, for instance the UN Security Council. In short, there is a sense that the 'Ukraine moment' may produce a fundamental realignment of the global order. In the words of the German chancellor, it may constitute a Zeitenwende.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Domestic trials of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are considered quicker, cheaper and more responsive to victims’ needs than the International Criminal Court’s trials in The Hague. But prioritising domestic... more
Domestic trials of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are considered quicker, cheaper and more responsive to victims’ needs than the International Criminal Court’s trials in The Hague.
But prioritising domestic accountability for the most serious crimes has both advantages and disadvantages.
But prioritising domestic accountability for the most serious crimes has both advantages and disadvantages.
Research Interests:
Choices of institutional design may seem like technical disputes among lawyers, but the increasingly polarized debate over whether the Special Tribunal for Aggression against Ukraine should be international or hybrid goes to the heart,... more
Choices of institutional design may seem like technical disputes among lawyers, but the increasingly polarized debate over whether the Special Tribunal for Aggression against Ukraine should be international or hybrid goes to the heart, and core purpose, of international criminal law, especially its ability to serve as a counter-hegemonic force aiding the victims of abuse by powerful States.
Research Interests:
Despite a reductive tendency to analyze global divisions over aggression trials before a Special Tribunal through a “West” versus “Global South” binary, the longer-term stakes of accountability for Ukraine are better illuminated by how... more
Despite a reductive tendency to analyze global divisions over aggression trials before a Special Tribunal through a “West” versus “Global South” binary, the longer-term stakes of accountability for Ukraine are better illuminated by how people from smaller and weaker States, in both the “Global South” and the “Global East,” can harness the full-scale invasion to transcend geo-political rivalries and unleash the counter-hegemonic potential of international law going forward.
Research Interests:
A blog post about my book for the OUP blog
Research Interests:
I respond to voices that situate the Ukraine war and international legal responses thereto in a wider context, including by criticising the role of human rights in inciting the war, the West’s neglect of Global South crises, or... more
I respond to voices that situate the Ukraine war and international legal responses thereto in a wider context, including by criticising the role of human rights in inciting the war, the West’s neglect of Global South crises, or international law’s Euro-centrism. While these critiques are well-intentioned, I offer some critical thoughts on these critical (and nominally progressive) responses – a critique of the critique. I argue that these calls for introspection on the part of some Western and Global South international lawyers inadvertently reproduce a Western-centric vision of the world, and international law’s role therein, while effacing the voices of Ukrainians who, in this case, are the paradigmatic case of a subaltern people responding to imperialist aggression, including through the emancipatory language of international law. By discounting this reality, some critiques may be doing actual harm to Ukraine, which is hard to reconcile with any progressive vision of international law.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: International Relations, Peace and Conflict Studies, International Law, International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, and 10 morePeacekeeping, Use of Force & Counter-terrorism, Use of Force, International Humanitarian Law and Protection of Civilians, Police use of force, Use of force in international law and international relations, Security and Peace Studies, UN peacekeeping operations, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, and Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This blog post argues that the ICC's decision to authorize a re-trial of Germain Katanga in the DRC is a violation of the prohibition of ne bis in idem and undermines the Rome Statute's complementarity regime.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This blog post explores the inconsistent use of the term 'genocide' in United Nations reports. It suggests that the Commission of Inquiry on the Central African Republic prematurely excluded the possibility of genocide, in light of the... more
This blog post explores the inconsistent use of the term 'genocide' in United Nations reports. It suggests that the Commission of Inquiry on the Central African Republic prematurely excluded the possibility of genocide, in light of the applicable law on genocide and the UN's other findings of possible genocide.
Research Interests:
A critical analysis of various proposals to establish 'hybrid' and 'mixed' tribunals in Africa, this post suggests that the international community may need to re-think whether advocating these types of accountability mechanisms is the... more
A critical analysis of various proposals to establish 'hybrid' and 'mixed' tribunals in Africa, this post suggests that the international community may need to re-think whether advocating these types of accountability mechanisms is the most effective method of dealing with international crimes.
Research Interests:
The civil war in South Sudan began in December 2013. One year on, this post discusses the prospects of criminal accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in South Sudan.
Research Interests:
This blog post covers the political stakes of enacting domestic judicial reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2010-2011, in particular legislation domesticating the ICC Statute and a bill establishing a mixed jurisdiction for... more
This blog post covers the political stakes of enacting domestic judicial reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2010-2011, in particular legislation domesticating the ICC Statute and a bill establishing a mixed jurisdiction for international crimes.