KMAN Publication Incorporation Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics 3060-5687 In Press 2027 03 01 A Comparative Examination of the Position and Role of Legal Paternalism in Iranian and French Criminal Law A Comparative Examination of the Position and Role of Legal Paternalism in Iranian and French Criminal Law 1 15 EN Journal Article 2026 02 25 <p>Legal paternalism, as a basis for state intervention in individual behavior with the aim of protecting persons from their own harmful decisions, constitutes one of the most controversial concepts in the philosophy of criminal law. The legal systems of Iran and France, grounded in distinct cultural, historical, and philosophical traditions, have adopted different approaches to this principle. The present study aimed to comparatively examine the position of legal paternalism in the criminal justice systems of Iran and France, analyze its jurisprudential and philosophical foundations, and identify challenges and reform strategies for maintaining a balance between individual liberty and public interests. This research was conducted using a descriptive–analytical method and a comparative approach. Data were collected through documentary analysis of legislation, judicial decisions, jurisprudential and philosophical texts, and scholarly articles, and were examined using qualitative content analysis. The findings indicated that, within the Iranian legal system, legal paternalism occupies a central and extensive position based on jurisprudential foundations such as public interest (maslahah), preservation of religion, the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), and the principle of no harm (La Darar), leading to the criminalization of a broad range of self-regarding harmful behaviors. In contrast, within the French legal system, paternalism is justified through concepts such as human dignity, public order, and the protection of vulnerable individuals and is generally confined to exceptional circumstances. The principal challenges identified in both systems include tensions with individual autonomy, conceptual ambiguity, the limited effectiveness of purely criminal-law approaches, high implementation costs, and the gap between formal and informal norms. Despite fundamental differences in the foundations and scope of paternalism, the legal systems of Iran and France share certain core values, including human dignity, public order, and the protection of vulnerable persons, which may provide a basis for dialogue and mutual learning.</p> https://journalisslp.com/index.php/isslp/article/download/496/1005