Diplomatic Immunity and Criminal Accountability under Islamic International Law: A Comparative Analysis of Justice and Functional Necessity

Abstract

Diplomatic immunity is a fundamental principle of international law that enables diplomatic representatives to perform their official functions without interference from the receiving state. Despite its essential role in maintaining peaceful international relations, the doctrine has become increasingly controversial where it shields individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious human rights violations. This article examines diplomatic immunity from the perspective of Islamic international law (Siyar) and compares it with the contemporary international legal framework. Using doctrinal legal research and comparative legal analysis, it evaluates the Qur'an, the Sunnah, classical Islamic jurisprudence, and modern international legal instruments. The study argues that Islamic jurisprudence recognizes diplomatic immunity as a functional legal protection rather than an absolute personal privilege. Grounded in the principles of justice (ʿadl), public welfare (maṣlaḥah), and accountability, Islamic law rejects blanket immunity and promotes a balanced framework that reconciles diplomatic protection with criminal responsibility, thereby contributing to contemporary debates on international criminal justice and the rule of law.