In a world that claims to protect the legacy of human rights—ranging from the 1789 Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen to binding contemporary instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the four Geneva Conventions—the continued occurrence of atrocities, such as mass killings in Gaza and military assaults on civilian and scientific sites in Iran, challenges not only the moral legitimacy of the current world order but also the practical authority of the international legal system. The post-World War II global order, constructed upon the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Rome Statute, and the various international criminal and civil tribunals, has, in practice, morphed into a geopolitical management mechanism dominated by major powers rather than a framework for the protection of justice. Against this backdrop, the critical evaluation of Islamic states’ positions and actions in response to these crises, especially on the occasion of Islamic Human Rights Day, transcends a mere legal inquiry. It constitutes a civilizational, structural, and ethical examination of the capacity of these countries to contribute meaningfully to the reform of a biased international system.
Broadly speaking, Islamic states, based on internal commitments such as the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, and rooted in deep-seated jurisprudential principles reflecting the maqāṣid al-sharīʿa, are obligated to uphold human dignity and resist aggression and occupation. Article 23 of the Cairo Declaration explicitly affirms the right to resist occupation and the right of Islamic states to support such resistance, which aligns with Article 51 of the UN Charter (the right to self-defense) and the contemporary doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Furthermore, the collective right to self-determination, enshrined in Article 1 common to both 1966 International Covenants, offers a legitimate legal foundation for supporting the Palestinian people against occupation. In this context, the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the construction of the Israeli wall in the occupied Palestinian territories reaffirmed the legitimacy of resistance to prolonged occupation.
However, despite this legal framework, the actual response of many Islamic states to the Gaza crisis has remained woefully inadequate. Since October 7, 2023, Israeli attacks have constituted clear violations of jus cogens norms of international humanitarian law (IHL) and the forty customary rules of the ICRC. The bombardment of civilian areas, hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and humanitarian convoys represents direct breaches of the fundamental principles of the laws of war—namely distinction (Rule 1), proportionality (Rule 14), precaution (Rule 15), and prohibition of indiscriminate attacks (Rule 12). The destruction of vital infrastructure essential for civilian survival (such as water and electricity facilities) also falls under the prohibition set forth in Article 54 of Additional Protocol I (1977). Particularly, the reported use of white phosphorus in populated areas amounts to a violation of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), prohibiting weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or uncontrollable injuries.
From a criminal law perspective, these actions are prosecutable under Article 8 of the Rome Statute—specifically paragraphs a(i), b(i), b(ii), b(iv), and b(viii)—as war crimes. Should the element of intent be established (pursuant to Article 30), these acts could also meet the criteria for crimes against humanity (Article 7) or even genocide (Article 6). Practices such as the total siege of Gaza, the deliberate creation of famine, and the obstruction of humanitarian aid, resemble cases examined by the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and could provide solid grounds for indicting Israeli officials. Nevertheless, the absence of legal action by Islamic states—such as initiating referrals to the ICC under Article 14 or participating in evidence collection in compliance with Rule 64 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence—has become a fundamental obstacle to achieving criminal justice.
From a human rights perspective, Israel’s military actions constitute violations of Article 6 of the ICCPR (right to life), Article 12 of the ICESCR (right to health), Article 26 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 36, has emphasized that the right to life encompasses a prohibition on extrajudicial, unlawful, or arbitrary killings—even in the context of armed conflict—unless strictly required by IHL. Yet, Islamic states have not only failed to uphold these violated rights but have also neglected their obligations under the 1998 UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, particularly with regard to supporting Palestinian activists.
Moreover, the Israeli military attacks on Iranian territory in June 2025 represent a clear act of aggression as defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) and Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute. The targeting of civilian scientists violates the principle of distinction, Article 52 of Additional Protocol I (protection of civilian objects), and several subparagraphs of Article 8 of the Rome Statute. These acts are also fundamentally at odds with prior ICJ rulings in cases such as Nicaragua v. United States (1986) and Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States) (2003). From a human rights standpoint, the attacks breach Article 6 of the ICCPR, Article 15 of the ICESCR (right to benefit from scientific progress), and Article 1 of the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development.
Yet what most sharply highlights the depth of the crisis is not solely the severity of the crimes, but the silence, ambiguous positions, or passive reactions of many Islamic countries. This silence reveals a profound rift within the ethical, political, and legal foundations of the Islamic world in the face of contemporary atrocities. Their refusal to activate international judicial mechanisms—including ICC referrals, the establishment of independent fact-finding missions, effective engagement with the UN Human Rights Council, or the invocation of universal jurisdiction for obvious crimes—demonstrates a breakdown in collective will and strategic solidarity.
States that demand investigative commissions, sanctions, and international prosecutions in other humanitarian crises have, in the face of systematic crimes against the Palestinian people and the illegal military attacks on Iranian territory, largely confined themselves to generic statements and symbolic diplomatic gestures. Such conduct not only violates the principle of good faith in fulfilling international obligations under the UN Charter and customary international law, but also reinforces and perpetuates double standards in the global legal and political order—undermining the legitimacy of international institutions and weakening the pursuit of global justice.
Within this context, the Islamic world urgently requires a reengineering of its human rights diplomacy across four key levels:
- Legal: Establish documentation centers, support independent civil society organizations, train specialized lawyers in ICL and IHRL, and utilize universal jurisdiction mechanisms to prosecute human rights violators;
- Institutional: Enhance engagement with the ICC, ICJ, Human Rights Council, investigative commissions, treaty-monitoring bodies, and the UPR process to secure Islamic states’ presence in decision-making forums;
- Media: Develop think tanks, train media professionals in international legal standards, and promote legal narratives to challenge prevailing narrative frameworks;
- Governance: Integrate principles of accountability, transparency, and access to information into the foreign policies of Islamic states to bolster international legitimacy and strengthen responsible diplomacy.
In sum, the atrocities witnessed in Gaza, Rafah, Deir al-Balah, and within Iranian territory are not merely tests of the efficacy of international law—they serve as fundamental measures of the civilizational maturity and capacity of the Islamic world to transition from reactive posturing to proactive legal, political, and strategic engagement. These events have starkly revealed the disjunction between the rhetoric of justice and the actual conduct of Islamic states, underscoring the need for a critical reevaluation of the meaning, function, and coherence of the Islamic human rights discourse. If realized, such a transformation could elevate occasions like Islamic Human Rights and Human Dignity Day into platforms for manifesting collective will, civilizational agency, and the resurgence of the Islamic human rights discourse on the global stage.
Ultimately, Islamic states now stand at a historic crossroads: they can either, by drawing upon authentic religious sources, rooted indigenous institutions, existing capacities within international law, and legal rationality, play an active, constructive, and influential role in redefining the international order and elevating collective accountability—or, through continued political fragmentation, institutional weakness, and strategic inertia, merely bear witness to the erosion of values they once upheld—values such as human dignity, justice, and support for the oppressed.
