Abstract

This article interrogates the accusation of “double standards” in United Nations debates on the war in Gaza Strip by distinguishing between its narrative and empirical dimensions. It conceptualises „double standards” both as a politically consequential discursive
resource used by states to contest Western leadership and as a testable claim about asymmetry in institutional response. Methodologically, the study employs a mixed-methods approach that combines a qualitative narrative analysis of interventions in the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (UNGA) with a structured comparison of the first 100 days of UN engagement in two conflicts: the Russian Federation’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine and the Gaza War following the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks. Quantitatively, it examines indicators such as the frequency and format of UNSC meetings, draft and adopted resolutions, veto use, and UNGA emergency special sessions (ESS) and voting patterns. It also traces how the „double standards” frame is articulated across phases of the Gaza debate, by which actors, in which argumentative clusters (legality, international humanitarian law, civilian protection, ceasefire demands), and with what implications for institutional legitimacy. The findings show that deliberative intensity was broadly comparable in both cases. The article argues that legitimacy crises stem less from unequal procedural attention than from structural constraints on enforcement, which are subsequently reframed through “double standards” narratives by a broadening coalition of Global South actors accelerated by the Russian Federation.