Undoubtedly, this fragile political environment has significant economic implications, including declining investor confidence, disruptions to economic activities, and a worsening fiscal outlook. For ordinary Mozambicans, political instability translates into rising costs of living, limited access to essential services, and growing concerns about economic security. Mozambique's debt situation remains precarious, with the government balancing debt issuance, salary obligations, and governance challenges. While efforts to settle debts and stabilize finances are ongoing, political instability and calls for accountability will be crucial in shaping the country's economic trajectory. The African Sovereign Debt Justice Network (AfSDJN) continues to monitor developments, advocating for the promotion of peace for the creation of a conducive environment for just and transparent debt management processes that prioritize economic justice and sustainable financial governance.

This post examines this challenge for political organs and for international law through both a practical and theoretical lens. The practical side entails a recounting of the brief life of the UN’s International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia (ICHREE), a commission of inquiry of the Human Rights Council on which I served in 2022 and 2023. The theoretical side builds on this case study to ask what is realistic and still principled to expect of political bodies in enforcing international law in a way that reduces the prospects of double standards. Drawing on the concept of impartiality and the unavoidability of selectivity, I argue that HRC inquiries should proceed on the basis of the gravity of violations to avoid double standards (which are distinct from selectivity).

Zimbabwe remains ensnared in a profound sovereign debt crisis that hinders its economic recovery and sustainable development. The country's debt overhang continues to undermine fiscal stability, with the national debt surpassing US$20 billion. Despite pledges of commitment to debt clearance, Zimbabwe’s efforts are slow and encumbered by internal and external challenges, including controversial domestic reforms and complex international relations. This update delves into the ongoing struggles in Zimbabwe’s re-engagement efforts as it seeks to manage its debt crisis while navigating international financial obligations and domestic reforms.

This Guest Lecture event is collaboratively organized by the Afronomicslaw Academic Forum and the Institute for African Women in Law.

Our Samantha Kanoyangwa represented the African Sovereign Debt Justice Network at the FfD4 3rd Preparatory Committee Session.

International criminal justice is, by common consent, to at least some degree, victors’ justice. Some have argued, however, that victors’ justice might be giving way, over time, to a more universal justice also capable of holding victors accountable. This hopeful notion is often held up by others as a specifically liberal delusion. In my current project, however, I hope to use the examples of leftist “civil society tribunals” from the late Cold War to show that this idea - delusional or not - was once actually more popular amongst radical critics of the liberal international legal mainstream. Liberals, in this period, could thus be the “realists.” I conclude that geo-political realities do not only produce victors’ justice, they explain ideological responses towards it. They have changed how double standards are perceived.

While each post focuses on distinct contexts and frameworks, several overarching themes emerge. First, the posts reveal divergent conceptualizations and applications of the concepts of double standards in international legal practice, which in turn raises further questions about how best to examine the role of double standards in fields as disparate as international economic and criminal law. Second, the posts underscore the tension between the ideals of universality and the realities of power in international law: whether in the Human Rights Council, international criminal tribunals, or through state practice, double standards reveal the gap between abstract normative aspirations and political constraints that undermine consistent and principled action in specific cases. Third, the posts begin to identify the rhetorical and practical tools used to navigate or exploit this tension. From Esponda’s exploration of argumentative strategies to Schüller’s critique of procedural openings, the posts show how states and institutions justify selective actions while striving to maintain legitimacy. Fourth, some posts broach the question to what extent double standards are a remediable aspect of practice or, alternatively, an unavoidable feature of the international legal system.