نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق کیفری و جرمشناسیِ دانشکده علوم انسانیِ دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد قم، ایران، قم
2 دانشیار گروه حقوق بینالمللِ دانشکده حقوقِ دانشگاه قم، ایران، قم
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The principle of real (protective) jurisdiction, as one of the most important exceptions to the principle of territoriality of criminal jurisdiction, allows states to exercise jurisdiction over certain crimes committed outside their territorial boundary, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, provided that the act committed involves a serious threat to the fundamental and vital interests of the state. The purpose of this study is to analyze and compare the approach of the Iranian and Egyptian legal systems towards this type of jurisdiction and to explain its foundations, scope and legal effects in both systems. In Iranian law, the Islamic Penal Code of 2013, by adopting a crime-based and enumerative approach, has limited real jurisdiction mainly to crimes against internal and external security, territorial integrity, as well as crimes affecting the monetary credibility and official documents of the state, and at the same time, has taken into account the effects of conviction and execution of punishment abroad in determining the Ta'ziri punishment. In contrast, the Egyptian legal system, by accepting real jurisdiction over crimes committed against the security of the state and the fundamental interests of the state abroad, places greater emphasis on the principle of ne bis in idem and limiting domestic prosecution in the event of a final foreign judgment. The research method in this study is descriptive-analytical with a comparative approach and the data were collected through the study of library resources and legal documents. The research findings show that both legal systems, with a narrow and exceptional interpretation of real jurisdiction, seek to create a balance between the necessity of supporting state sovereignty and observing the fundamental principles of criminal justice, although significant differences are observed between them in the way of regulating the effects of foreign conviction and the degree of flexibility in exercising jurisdiction.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)