A Comparative Study of Jurisdictions in Iranian and Syrian Criminal Laws

In international criminal law, the principle of territorial jurisdiction is determinative, and a necessary condition for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction is to establish a relationship with the location of the crime or the perpetrator(s) of a crime in a competent court. However, domestic law has in some cases gradually adopted forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction. In comparing the Iranian law with the Syrian law on extraterritorial jurisdiction - which can be explained in addition to the territorial jurisdiction - the Syrian legislator has, like the Iranian legislator, actual jurisdiction, active personal jurisdiction, and universal jurisdiction in law, with the exception that as in other Arab countries, such as Egypt and Lebanon, it has not dealt with passive personal competence and somewhat has not advocated a victim who is subordinate to its own country and a victim in another, and this is somehow a defect in the Syrian law in the field of international law. This article also provides a detailed comparison of the weaknesses and shortcomings and sometimes benefits of Syrian law in the accepted jurisdiction with Iranian law, which is worthy of further research by other researchers.