نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق کیفری و جرم شناسی دانشکده علوم انسانی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی قم/قم/جمهوری اسلامی ایران
2 دانشیار گروه حقوق بینالملل دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه قم، قم، جمهوری اسلامی
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The principle of real (protective) jurisdiction constitutes one of the most significant exceptions to the territorial principle of criminal jurisdiction, allowing states to exercise criminal jurisdiction over certain offenses committed outside their territorial boundaries regardless of the offender’s nationality, provided that such conduct poses a serious threat to the fundamental and vital interests of the state. The present study aims to analyze and compare the approaches of the Iranian and Egyptian legal systems toward real jurisdiction, with a particular focus on its theoretical foundations, scope, and legal consequences in each system. In Iranian law, the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 adopts an enumerative and offense-based approach, confining real jurisdiction primarily to crimes against internal and external security, territorial integrity, and offenses affecting the credibility of state currency and official documents, while simultaneously taking into account the effects of foreign convictions and the execution of punishment abroad in determining domestic discretionary penalties. By contrast, the Egyptian legal system, while recognizing real jurisdiction over extraterritorial crimes against state security and essential national interests, places greater emphasis on the principle of ne bis in idem and more strictly limits domestic prosecution in cases where a final foreign judgment has been rendered and enforced. This research employs a descriptive–analytical methodology with a comparative legal approach, relying on statutory provisions and library-based sources. The findings indicate that both legal systems interpret real jurisdiction as an exceptional and restrictive principle aimed at striking a balance between the necessity of protecting state sovereignty and the fundamental requirements of criminal justice, although they differ notably in their treatment of the legal effects of foreign criminal judgments and the degree of flexibility in exercising such jurisdiction.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)