This thesis investigates paradigms and power dynamics perpetuating epistemic injustice against Iranians seeking recognition as victims of systemic human rights abuses. Chapter One critiques three methodological paradigms—cultural relativism, cultural essentialism, and methodological nationalism—that influence discourse on cultural rights and identity in non-Western contexts. Chapter Two uses Ontological Security Theory to analyze how the states’ international representation of cultural identities and domination of cultural discourse within the United Nations clash with people’s cultural rights. Chapter Three explores the Iranian government’s communicative strategies and victim-based identity claims, hijacking the victimhood of Iranians as true victims of systemic human rights abuses. The findings advocate for a reconceptualization of cultural rights and cultural identity within international human rights law based on a cosmopolitan approach, de-essentializing identities and states’ withdrawal from the realm of culture and identity, acknowledging that human dignity relies fundamentally on autonomy and self-determination. This thesis also makes the case that conceptualizing identity, victimhood, and resistance should center around human suffering rather than the state-centric concept of internationally wrongful acts, as recognizing the priority of human dignity over state sovereignty minimizes the influence of states’ communicative strategies to politicize and hijack narratives of victimhood.