This study examines one of the most prominent grounds for justification in criminal law: the right to self-defense. It explores the legal basis, conditions, limits, and regulatory constraints governing this right in the context of unlawful assaults. The research analyzes relevant legal texts from both Iraqi and Egyptian penal codes, highlighting judicial applications that demonstrate the degree of flexibility or rigidity with which these legal systems approach cases involving self-defense. The findings indicate a general consensus across the studied jurisdictions that an act is justified if it responds to an imminent and unlawful threat, when recourse to public authorities is not possible, and where there is proportionality between the defensive act and the aggression. However, key differences emerge in the specifics—particularly regarding the limits of self-defense, the consideration of the defender’s psychological state, and incidents involving public officials. The study also discusses the social and cultural dimensions influencing the application of this right, especially in communities where customary values lead to a broader interpretation of self-defense. This necessitates more precise and balanced legal mechanisms from both legislatures and judiciaries. The significance of this research lies in its analytical contribution to understanding self-defense as a legal safeguard without compromising public order. It also addresses a notable gap in Arab legal doctrine and jurisprudence.
Safouan Taha (Sat,) studied this question.