An Examination of Political Crimes from the Perspectives of Subjectivism and Objectivism

Abstract

This article examines political crimes through the lenses of subjectivist and objectivist ideologies in Iranian law and the international community. The main research question is how these two approaches influence the definition, interpretation, and enforcement of laws related to political crimes within Iran’s domestic legal system and in international legal instruments. To this end, using a comparative-analytical research method, the concepts of subjectivism and objectivism are first clarified, and then their manifestations in Iran’s legal system and the international arena are analyzed. The findings indicate that subjectivist ideology places particular emphasis on the political motive of the accused. In the Iranian legal system, through the integration of Islamic ideology and civil law, this has led to definitions that are relatively dependent on political intent and governmental approaches. In contrast, objectivism, by focusing on actions and behavioral consequences, has guided international law toward tangible criteria and global standards. Ultimately, the article concludes that integrating these two approaches within domestic law, while aligning it with objective international standards, can contribute to greater clarity in the definition of political crimes and reduce related disputes.