Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• shirin bayat ¹
• yazdan seyghal ²

¹ Ph.D. in criminal law and criminology, University of Tehran,Tehran,Iran

² Ph.D. in criminal law and criminology, university of Shahid Beheshti,

Abstract

The right to a healthy environment, closely tied to fundamental rights such as the right to life, has been widely recognized in various legal systems and international instruments. The importance of safeguarding and protecting the environment is universally acknowledged. Today, environmental protection has become a primary goal for the global community, reflected in the constitutions and legal frameworks of over 110 countries. These laws enshrine the right to a healthy environment or emphasize the necessity of environmental protection. This commitment is not limited to domestic legislative measures; many international instruments have made environmental protection a key priority.
Iran has also recognized the significance of environmental protection and has supported this cause through numerous legislative actions. Since the Islamic Revolution, the right to a healthy environment has been enshrined in Article 50 of the Iranian Constitution, with the protection of the environment being regarded as a public duty. To fulfill this responsibility, the Iranian legislature has implemented various measures. However, in some areas, these efforts have adopted a criminal and punitive approach, acknowledging the limitations of administrative and civil enforcement in safeguarding the environment and preventing harmful actions. This raises an important question: while protecting the environment, whether for its intrinsic value or for human benefit, is a worthy and desirable goal, does this alone justify criminal intervention?
Criminalization delineates the boundary between prohibited behavior and individual freedoms. Any criminal intervention, including criminalization and sentencing, inherently restricts individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, limiting individual freedom through criminalization requires clear justification. Governments must base their criminalization actions on specific principles and rationale to justify the restriction of citizens' freedoms. This article aims to explore the underlying basis of criminalization in Iran’s environmental laws, specifically in relation to the criminalization of certain environmental behaviors.
To address this, the article begins by examining one of the most significant principles of criminalization in legal systems: the principle of harm. John Stuart Mill, in his influential work On Liberty, argues that the only legitimate purpose for exercising power over individuals against their will is to prevent harm to others. Mill asserts that individuals should not be punished for actions that do not harm anyone. This principle of harm forms the cornerstone of the liberal model of criminalization.
Mill’s interpretation of harm focuses on violations of rules essential for society's survival, which harm the vital interests of others. However, this definition raises several questions in the context of environmental crimes. For instance, in order to convict someone, must their behavior result in actual damage to the environment, or is it sufficient for the behavior to merely present a risk of harm? Relying exclusively on the principle of harm as a requirement for actual and tangible damage to the environment overlooks behaviors that pose a threat to the environment but have yet to cause direct harm. This limitation weakens the ability to protect the environment effectively.
In the postmodern 21st century, often described as a “risky society,” the principle of caution has emerged as an essential component in criminal law, especially in areas that are critical and vulnerable, such as the environment. The principle of caution emphasizes the need for rational and foresighted thinking, aiming to avoid both intentional and unintentional risks. This shift in perspective has prompted changes in the interpretation of harm. In the American legal context, the development of the harm principle in Feinberg’s theory expands its scope, suggesting that harm is not limited to inherently damaging behaviors. Instead, it now encompasses behaviors that present a real or abstract risk of endangerment to the environment.
This broader understanding of harm includes both real and abstract endangerment, allowing for the criminalization of actions that may not cause immediate harm but still pose a significant risk to the environment. By incorporating the principle of precaution, criminal law can better address environmental threats before they result in irreversible damage. This shift reflects a more proactive approach to environmental protection, ensuring that harmful behaviors are addressed in advance, rather than waiting for tangible damage to occur.
In conclusion, while the principle of harm has traditionally been a guiding rationale for criminalization, its application in environmental law must evolve. The inclusion of the precautionary principle, along with an expanded concept of harm, provides a more effective framework for addressing environmental risks. This approach ensures that criminalization is not restricted to cases of actual harm but also extends to behaviors that present potential threats to environmental integrity, aligning with the global need for proactive and comprehensive environmental protection.
 

Keywords

• Environment
• Criminalization
• Principle of Harm
• Risk of Causing Harm
• Endangerment

Main Subjects

• Criminal law and criminology