Selective Global Justice and the Iranian Uprising: Legitimacy, Civil Resistance, and the Crisis of International Political Theory

The uprising in Iran, which began after the death of Jina (Mahsa) Amini, shows a continuing crisis in international justice. Even with clear evidence of state violence and human rights abuses, the world’s response has mostly been limited and symbolic. This gap between moral promises and real action raises important questions about responsibility, credibility, and the future of global justice. This paper uses the Iranian uprising as a primary example to examine how international law and human rights norms are enforced selectively. It draws on theories of global justice, legitimacy, and civil resistance, and uses a qualitative case study that combines theory with evidence from international reactions, human rights reports, and activism related to Iran. The paper argues that ideal theories of global justice often fail to account for situations in which legal norms exist but are not enforced, thereby revealing deeper inequalities in the international system. The paper shows that non-state actors, diasporas, and transnational civil society are assuming greater moral responsibility when formal institutions fail during prolonged periods of repression. It concludes that global justice is not just a set of ideals, but a contested practice shaped by power, selectivity, and questions of legitimacy. International political theory must address these issues to remain relevant.