Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Associate Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2
PhD Student in International Law, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Crimes against national security are recognized as political and security offenses in many countries, with severe penalties imposed for them. This research aims to examine the approaches to combating crimes against national security in Iran and the USA, and to analyze the interaction or conflict of these approaches with international laws and regulations. The research methodology employed in this study is qualitative, using a comparative and analytical approach. The results indicate that in both countries, legislative and executive approaches tend to prioritize state security over citizens’ rights. In the USA, following the events of September 11, terrorism has been regarded as a serious threat, leading to many national security laws that facilitate broader government intervention in security matters and address both foreign and domestic threats. Similarly, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the predominance of the idea of maintaining the regime reveals a comparable stance on national security measures. Despite legal differences, there is a noticeable emphasis on prioritizing security over individual rights in both countries. Some national security laws in both nations consider individuals or groups as guilty of crimes against national security merely based on suspicion. Security concerns resulting from terrorist threats in the USA and the extension of the political idea of regime preservation to the legal arena in the Islamic Republic of Iran have led to specific approaches in both countries that are not necessarily aligned with international law’s principles regarding individual freedoms. Therefore, it is essential for both legal systems to define crimes against national security more transparently and specifically within the framework of international rules.
Introduction
Crimes against national security are specific crimes that threaten and target the values related to security in a society, or those that lead to the destabilization and destruction of the society's security values (Koushki & Alizadeh Seresht, 2015: 107). Therefore, crimes against national security specifically refer to crimes that endanger the existence of a government, covering a range of violations, including criticism of the political system, street protests, armed resistance, or sabotage in public and government facilities. However, in any case, the commission of crimes against national security ultimately means the elimination, exclusion, and marginalization of citizens to varying degrees, justified both morally and contractually. Morally, citizens who refuse to accept their moral duties, as well as those who disregard social contracts and obligations, are considered offenders (Mahmoudi Janki & Emami Arandi, 2013: 169). In this regard, the present study aims to examine the approaches to combating crimes against national security in the laws of the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, in light of international law rules and regulations.
Methods and Materials
The methodology of this article is descriptive-analytical, and it employs a comparative approach. The data used in the article was collected through documentary and library methods, and the analysis was carried out through an inferential and comparative approach.
Discussion
The approach to combating crimes against national security in the U.S. has been influenced by the special circumstances that followed the September 11 attacks, during which the increasing fear of terrorism among American citizens, as well as daily emotional news and analyses, and media and political campaigns, have been significant in the enforcement of these crimes (Best, 2018: 16). Some have linked this fear and threat to concerns about the future security of the country and peaceful living for American citizens (Furedi, 2018: 65). In the Islamic Republic of Iran, however, the jurisprudential approach to social and political issues has led to prioritizing security over the freedom of citizens, considering the right to security as more important than achieving other fundamental freedoms of citizens. This approach reflects a stronger connection between national security and regime preservation, rather than between national security and citizens' rights and freedoms (Alipour & Kargari, 2010: 48). The prevailing legal approach in Iran, from the perspective of preserving the regime (Taghavi, 1999: 60), leads to the prioritization of security over freedom and places other citizens' rights in a secondary position.
Conclusion
The results indicate that in both Iran and the U.S., legislative and executive approaches tend to prioritize state security over citizens' rights. In the U.S., following the September 11 attacks, terrorism has been considered a serious threat, and many national security laws lead to greater state intervention in security matters and dealing with both domestic and foreign threats. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, due to the predominance of the idea of regime preservation, a similar approach is observed regarding anti-national security measures. Despite legal differences, both countries emphasize the precedence of security over individual rights. Moreover, some national security laws in both countries consider individuals or groups suspected merely of being a threat to national security as perpetrators. Security concerns arising from terrorist threats in the U.S. and the extension of the political idea of regime preservation to the legal domain in Iran have led to specific approaches in both countries, which are not necessarily aligned with international law forms regarding individual freedoms. Therefore, it is essential that in both legal systems, crimes against national security be more clearly defined and applied in accordance with international law standards.
Keywords
