Validation of the Principle of Territorial Jurisdiction in Imami Jurisprudence, Afghan Law, and International Documents

Abstract

The principle of territorial jurisdiction, as a spatial domain of criminal laws and as one of the foundations for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by states in different legal systems, holds a varying status. In this research, the validity of this principle in three sources—Imamiyyah jurisprudence, Afghan law, and international documents—has been studied using a descriptive-analytical comparative method. The findings indicate that in Imamiyyah jurisprudence, the acceptance of this principle as a primary ruling is not admissible; however, it can be justified as a secondary ruling and a governmental ruling. In contrast, in Afghan law and international documents, the principle of territorial jurisdiction has been widely and clearly accepted. Furthermore, the research findings show that despite differences in foundations, there is the possibility of harmonization and compatibility between the approach of Imamiyyah jurisprudence on one hand and Afghan law and international documents on the other regarding the acceptance of the principle of territorial jurisdiction. Within the framework of secondary and governmental rulings, the necessary capacity can be provided to reconcile these three sources regarding the acceptance of the principle of territorial jurisdiction.