A Comparative Analysis of the Legal Systems Governing Bribery and Abuse of Power Offenses Among Public Officials in Iranian and Iraqi Law

Abstract

Bribery and abuse of power offenses, as prominent manifestations of administrative corruption, constitute a serious threat to the efficiency of governmental structures and public trust. These crimes, primarily committed by public officials, lead to dysfunction in the operations of government agencies, a decline in transparency, and the reinforcement of illegal relationships. The legal systems of both Iran and Iraq face similar challenges in combating these crimes, including legal loopholes in certain areas, complexities in proving the offense, and weak oversight of public officials' performance. In Iran, instruments such as the Islamic Penal Code and administrative health regulations are recognized as key legal tools. In Iraq, the existence of the Commission of Integrity and recent legal reforms reflect efforts to strengthen the judiciary’s responsiveness. However, differences can be observed in the way these offenses are defined and penalized, including the degree of attention paid to cultural elements and local customs. Through a descriptive-analytical method, the researcher concludes that both Iran and Iraq possess comparable legal frameworks in addressing bribery and abuse of power, yet the enforcement of these laws is hindered by challenges such as weak systematic oversight and the difficulty of establishing guilt. In Iran, greater emphasis is placed on administrative integrity through legislation and regulatory measures, whereas Iraq pursues enhanced judicial accountability through anti-corruption bodies such as the Commission of Integrity. The comparative analysis indicates that drawing on shared experiences and reforming existing laws could have a positive impact on reducing corruption. Furthermore, the necessity of strengthening professional ethics training and administrative oversight emerges as an effective strategy in both countries. The comparative assessment of these two legal systems suggests that integrating bilateral experiences can enhance the effectiveness of laws and bolster public trust.