In the contemporary era, international human rights have transcended a mere moral ideal and have become a fundamental criterion for assessing the legitimacy of the exercise of public authority. Administrative courts, as the competent tribunals for disputes between citizens and the state, play a pivotal role in safeguarding these rights against the arbitrariness and abuse of power by the executive branch. This study aims to comparatively examine the extent to which the judicial practice of administrative courts in Iraq and Egypt aligns with international human rights treaties and standards, analyzing the opportunities and challenges facing these two legal systems. Adopting a descriptive–analytical method with a comparative approach, the research examines legal texts—including constitutions, laws of the State Council, and procedural rules—as well as judicial rulings issued by the administrative courts of both countries. The findings indicate that the Egyptian administrative court, supported by the explicit provision of Article 93 of the 2014 Constitution and a dynamic and creative judicial practice, has been able to employ international treaties as an interpretive and binding tool for protecting public freedoms, such as freedom of expression, the right to defense, and freedom of belief. In contrast, the Iraqi administrative court, despite the explicit stipulation of Article 8 of the 2005 Constitution, faces serious challenges in the practical application of these standards due to the lack of judicial expertise in international human rights law, a restrictive interpretation of legal texts, structural dependence on the executive branch, and the absence of explicit enforcement mechanisms.