چکیده:
The explanation of legal foundations and the criteria for enacting laws plays a significant role in the acceptance and heartfelt belief of society members in these laws. The precise clarification of these foundations, especially regarding crimes against security, takes on double importance because these crimes are directly related to national security, sovereignty, and the existence of a regime, and usually involve heavy punishments. The criminalization of crimes against security requires logical, scientific, and reasoned justifications derived from the foundations of criminal law. This article examines the legal analysis of the foundations of criminalizing crimes against security in the criminal law system of Iran. The foundations of criminalization in Iranian criminal law are influenced both by Islamic Sharia and jurisprudential knowledge, and by modernity and Western customary law. In order to justify the criminalization of crimes against security, hybrid or mixed theories that appear more effective and efficient are examined. These theories are immune to the flaws of a one-dimensional view, and more justice is observed in their application. The main foundations examined in this research are: the principle of welfare, the principle of harm, legal expediency, and legal perfectionism. The principle of welfare emphasizes the importance of security as one of the essential pillars of social welfare and considers criminalization as a necessary means to ensure the security and welfare of society. The principle of harm considers criminalization permissible when an individual's action causes harm to the security of society. Legal expediency examines the interests and benefits that, when violated, make criminalization justifiable. Finally, legal perfectionism is analyzed as an approach to improving the legal level of society and reducing crimes against security. This research shows that to justify the criminalization of crimes against security, one cannot rely on a single foundation or theory, but rather must use a set of theories and foundations that complement each other. In this way, the justification of criminalization is carried out in a more comprehensive and fairer manner, leading to the acceptance and observance of laws by members of society.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In Western law, various foundations have been proposed, but the foundations that have the capacity to justify the criminalization of crimes against security and can be logically integrated include the principle of welfare, the principle of harm, legal expediency, and legal perfectionism.
In customary and Western law, various foundations have been proposed to justify the criminalization of crimes against security, but the key foundations include the principle of welfare, the principle of harm, legal expediency, and legal perfectionism.
1-2- The connection of the principle of welfare with the criminalization of crimes against security This approach emphasizes the state's commitment to providing the necessary social conditions for the full realization of citizens' independence.
For this reason, based on the principle of welfare, the state uses criminal law and criminalization to limit individual freedoms in order to maintain public comfort and social order.
4- Limitation of the scope of criminalization in interests Despite the fact that non-Islamic countries impose limitations on individual freedoms and emphasize social, political, and economic interests, these societies have always established a red line for their legal systems in the process of criminalization: citizens must be kept away from a sense of restriction.
The examination and analysis of various foundations, including the principle of welfare, the harm principle, legal expediency, and legal perfectionism, clarifies the fact that each of these principles plays an important role in justifying the criminalization of crimes against security, and their combination can lead to a more comprehensive and just understanding.
(
, 
, 
)
