Examining the Foundations of Justifying Causes of Crime in Iranian Criminal Law with a Perspective on the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Islamic Jurisprudence, and the Fundamental Princi-ples of Islamic Sharia

Justifying causes of crime refer to the reasons and factors that remove the criminal nature of an act that would otherwise be considered a crime under normal circumstances, rendering it blameless. In such cases, the offender's action serves social interest and benefit, making it not only exempt from punishment but also worthy of praise and encouragement. Justifying causes of crime are fundamental issues in both national and international criminal law. Although the term "justifying causes of crime" is not explicitly mentioned in Islamic jurisprudence, its foundations can be traced in Quranic verses, jurisprudential principles, and noble hadiths. From the perspective of Islamic law, the general rule is that prohibited acts are forbidden for everyone. However, as an exception, the sacred lawmaker has deemed certain acts permissible for individuals possessing specific attributes, considering the prevailing social conditions and circumstances. This study employs a descriptive-analytical and library-based research method to examine the foundations of permissible actions within justifying causes of crime. The findings reveal significant disagreements regarding the basis for the legitimacy of such actions. Some scholars attribute it to public interest, while others consider it a means of preventing undesirable consequences. A third perspective emphasizes moral rights as the foundation of justifying causes, whereas a fourth theory argues that the justification is based on achieving a greater benefit and minimizing harm.
 Keywords: Justifying causes of crime, Islamic jurisprudence, Iranian criminal law, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Islamic law
Introduction
The commission of a prohibited act in criminal laws is punishable only if the perpetrator is not entitled to a defense. In its broadest sense, defense refers to anything that prevents the issuance of a conviction. This definition encompasses all types of defenses, both procedural and substantive. Procedural defenses are examined in criminal procedure law, while substantive defenses are studied in criminal law. Some substantive defenses are exonerating defenses, which include justifications (justifying causes of crime) and reasons for eliminating criminal responsibility. In justifications, the act committed serves a social interest or benefit, and as a result, not only is it not punishable, but it may also be praised and encouraged. Justifying causes of crime are objective reasons and factors that, in order to prevent greater harm or achieve a higher benefit, make the actions of all participants and accomplices in the crime justifiable. In other words, they render an act that would ordinarily be considered a crime, permissible. A justifiable act is one that is good, correct, reasonable, or permissible to perform. Although the term "justifying causes" is not explicitly mentioned in Islamic jurisprudence, the foundations of this legal concept can be found in the Quranic verses, Islamic jurisprudence, and noble hadiths. From the perspective of Islamic law, the general rule is that prohibited behaviors are universally forbidden. However, as an exception to this rule, the sacred lawgiver has permitted certain actions for individuals who possess specific attributes, because the prevailing conditions of individuals and social groups necessitate this permissibility.
Materials & methods
The fact that justifying causes lead to the removal of the legal element of a crime is a well-established principle in criminal law. However, a clear answer has not yet been provided to the question of why a particular behavior leads to the elimination of the legal element. Raising this question is necessary because identifying the key criteria of justifying causes can help determine how to approach the offender. This article attempts, using library research methods and by extracting information from various sources in a descriptive, analytical, and inductive manner, to answer the question of what the basis for the permissibility of actions in justifying causes of crime is, while also examining the foundations of justifying causes of crime.
Discussion & Result
Justifying causes of crime are reasons and factors that remove the criminal nature of an act that would normally be considered a crime under ordinary circumstances, rendering it blameless. Iranian criminal law does not establish a clear and uniform standard for justifying causes; meaning that in Articles 156 and 157 of the Islamic Penal Code, regarding self-defense, if the defender's fear is rational and supported by reasonable evidence and indications, it is considered a justification for self-defense. The defender's fear refers to the belief and perception of the defender, which aligns these provisions with a subjective theory. However, in other justifying causes, such as the law’s command and necessity, the legislator accepts an objective standard. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in Articles 31 to 33, addresses factors that eliminate criminal responsibility and justifying causes of crime. Given that the regulations related to justifying causes of crime in the International Criminal Court are borrowed from the domestic laws of countries, the foundations of justifying causes in the Rome Statute are based on legal doctrine. From the perspective of Islamic law, it is understood that the general principle is that prohibited behaviors are forbidden for everyone. However, as an exception to this rule, the sacred law permits certain behaviors for individuals who possess specific characteristics, as the prevailing circumstances of individuals and social groups necessitate such permissibility.
Conclusion
The results of this research show that there are fundamental disagreements regarding the basis for the permissibility of acts in the case of justifying causes. Some consider it to be based on public interests, while others see it as a way to avoid undesirable consequences. The third opinion refers to the moral right as the basis for justifying causes, and the fourth theory considers the achievement of greater benefit and lesser harm as the foundation of justifying causes. Iranian criminal law does not provide a clear and unified standard for justifying causes; this means that in Articles 156 and 157 of the Islamic Penal Code, regarding self-defense, the defender's fear, if rational and supported by evidence and reasonable indications, is considered a justification for self-defense. The defender's fear refers to the belief and perception of the defender, which aligns these provisions with a subjective theory. However, in other justifying causes, such as the law's command and necessity, the legislator has accepted an objective standard. Considering that the regulations related to justifying causes of crime in the International Criminal Court are based on domestic law principles of various countries, the foundations of justifying causes in the Rome Statute have been shaped by legal doctrine. From the perspective of Islamic law, we understand that the general rule is that prohibited behaviors are universally forbidden. However, as an exception to this rule, the sacred law permits certain behaviors for individuals possessing specific characteristics, because the circumstances affecting individuals and social groups necessitate this permissibility