This study explores the extent to which international law achieves justice through the application of its various rules to Middle Eastern issues, which have been expanding in ways that alarm the international community and threaten global peace and security. This occurs amid political conflicts, armed disputes, issues of occupation and refugees, and the differing positions of major powers toward these matters, driven by their hegemonic interests. Therefore, this research aims to assess the neutrality and fairness of international law in practical and applied contexts particularly with regard to the Palestinian issue, the Israeli-American-Iranian conflict, the wars in Syria that have claimed the lives of thousands from various sects and communities, as well as the situation in Yemen and the associated cases of human rights violations. Are the rules of international law applied fairly to Middle Eastern issues? Or is there a double standard and a deviation from the principles of international justice, given the weakness of the United Nations and Security Council resolutions and the competing interests of major powers in the region?Although international law sets unified standards and rules for achieving justice, the application of these standards and rules in the Middle East is influenced by the political interests of major powers, leading to the absence of effective justice in many of the issues facing the region. This, in turn, poses a threat to the region and threatens international peace and security.
Muhammad Abd (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: