For long Diplomatic Protection was considered the patrimonial rights of states, and some international cases such as “Mavrommatis” 1924, Barcena Ttraction 1970, Avena 2004 have bolstered this view. Today, as a result of the development of human rights, it is assumed that the protection afforded to an injured individual by his government is based on the fact that whose human rights have been violated abroad by an internationally wrongful act of another State.
The United Nations International Law Commission in its efforts since 1995, through the Draft Convention on diplomatic Protection, has been able to show that no longer may diplomatic protection be considered as the exclusive right of state. This indicates that human rights have developed to such extent that they have gone beyond the traditional boundaries of the three conditions for the exercise of this rights, i.e. nationality of Claims, exhaustion of local remedies, and clean hands.  
In Islamic Law, protection of injured person is a basic principle, without regard for the issue of whether protection of an individual is the exclusive right of his government. The alliance (Agreement) of “Helf al-Fodul” before and after Islam is an example of institutionalized protection of injured person in Islamic history.
The present article, by focusing on the efforts of the ILC Draft Articles on Diplomatic protection with its human rights orientation as well as by reviewing the foundations and sources of Islamic jurisprudence, attempts to prove that the preconditions such as nationality and exhaustion of local remedies, to exercise diplomatic protection, are only effective to the extent that it is in accord with human dignity and as long as the individual is not made an instrument for the securing of the potential interests of states. 
In any event, the International Law Commission is the harbinger of a new legal work in the field of Diplomatic protection, (lex ferenda) and is not an indication of existing international commitment. (Hard law)