ABSTRACT
In a world increasingly portrayed as beset by the 'clash of civilizations', especially between the West and Islam, the universality of international humanitarian law (IHL) is increasingly threatened. The central question in the forced pregnancy debate was whether IHL could accommodate conflicting social visions, different civilizations. Its successful resolution demonstrates that humanitarian law can work as a product of dialogue, a conversation between civilizations. The unity of the umma as an agent within the international humanitarian law system was further challenged by the creation of new nation-States in the post First World War peace conferences. Islamic representatives played important roles in reshaping international humanitarian law to deal with the realities of post-colonial conflict. Their participation was marked, however, not by transnational Islamism but by nationalism. The Islamic Revolution in Iran signalled a revival of theocratic Islamic ideology and politics which fundamentally changed the relationship between Islamic players and the public international legal system, including IHL.
