Document Type : Research Paper

Author

• Yaser Hajipour

Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran,Tehran.Iran

Abstract

The principle of territoriality has long been regarded as a cornerstone of criminal law. According to this principle, a state’s authority to enforce its criminal laws is confined to its own territory, and individuals within that territory are considered equal before the law. This concept reflects both the sovereignty of the state and the foundational value of legal equality, ensuring that all persons—regardless of status, nationality, or position—are subject to the same legal standards within a given jurisdiction. Thus, territoriality is not merely a technical rule but a vital safeguard for fairness, consistency, and legitimacy in criminal justice.
Despite its theoretical soundness, the practical application of territorial criminal law faces substantial challenges. Modern criminal justice systems must address a wide spectrum of offenses, from minor infractions to complex, transnational crimes. However, law enforcement agencies, courts, and correctional institutions often operate under significant constraints, including personnel shortages, financial limitations, and disparities in institutional capacity. Regional diversity further exacerbates these issues: some areas experience high rates of specific crimes (e.g., drug trafficking, cybercrime), while others contend with property crimes or violence linked to socio-economic conditions. Geographic heterogeneity—urban-rural divides, border regions, and remote communities—adds further complexity to the uniform enforcement of criminal law.
These realities reveal that a strictly centralized criminal justice system may not operate effectively or equitably across all parts of a state. A one-size-fits-all approach risks inefficiencies, overburdening some regions while leaving others underserved. It may also foster perceptions of inequality, as citizens in different areas experience varied levels of legal protection and institutional responsiveness. The central research question of this study is therefore: how can the formal unity of national criminal law be reconciled with the practical necessity for regionally differentiated enforcement mechanisms?
This article proposes a novel framework that addresses these issues without compromising the unity of the national legal order. The key idea is that, while criminal law should remain uniform across the state, its practical enforcement should be regionally organized based on three core indicators: The diversity and hierarchical importance of crimes within a region. Understanding the most prevalent and socially harmful crimes in each area is essential for rational resource allocation; the availability of resources and human capital in each region. Regional disparities in qualified judges, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, and correctional staff necessitate tailored administrative strategies; geographical distinctiveness, such as differences between metropolitan areas, rural provinces, and border regions, which demand differentiated operational approaches.
Based on these indicators, a political-judicial management system can be designed that allows for greater flexibility and responsiveness. This system does not fragment the national legal order but instead introduces an adaptive administrative layer that aligns the enforcement of criminal law with local conditions while remaining grounded in shared legal principles. A structured model of regional administration can improve efficiency, reduce systemic bottlenecks, and promote fairness.
The contribution of this study lies in bridging the gap between normative legal principles and practical constraints. While legal scholarship has focused extensively on the formal requirements of territoriality and equality, less attention has been paid to the concrete difficulties of implementing these principles in diverse regional contexts. By emphasizing the importance of regionally adaptive administration within a unitary legal framework, this article offers a pathway for reconciling idealistic legal values with on-the-ground realities. Methodologically, the study employs a comparative and analytical approach, drawing on criminal law theory, public administration, legal geography, and case studies from jurisdictions that have experimented with regional autonomy in judicial administration.
The expected outcomes of such a system are multifaceted. First, it would increase efficiency by channeling resources to areas of greatest need, thereby reducing delays and case backlogs. Second, it would promote equity by ensuring that individuals in different regions receive comparable levels of legal protection, even if administrative models differ. Third, it would enhance legitimacy, as citizens would perceive the justice system as more responsive to their specific circumstances. Finally, it would create a more resilient system—better equipped to address emerging forms of crime, such as cybercrime and transnational offenses, which often vary significantly across regions.
In conclusion, while the territorial application of criminal law remains indispensable as a foundational principle, the realities of contemporary governance demand a more nuanced, regionally sensitive approach to enforcement. By organizing the administration of criminal justice around the diversity of crimes, the availability of resources, and geographical particularities, states can enhance both the effectiveness and legitimacy of their legal systems. Ultimately, this analysis demonstrates that territoriality and regionalization are not mutually exclusive but rather mutually reinforcing principles that form the basis of a balanced, equitable, and sustainable model of criminal justice in the twenty-first century.

Keywords

• Management
• Politics
• Political Geography
• Criminal Policy
• Criminal Justice System

Main Subjects

• Criminal law and criminology