CRIMINAL PROTECTION OF THE STATE'S NATIONAL SYMBOLS :ACOMPARATIVE STUDY

Abstract

National symbols, including the national flag, national anthem, and national emblem, constitute fundamental manifestations of State sovereignty, constitutional identity, and national unity. Nevertheless, the increasing incidence of both physical and technology-facilitated attacks against these symbols has raised important questions regarding the adequacy of existing criminal legislation to ensure effective criminal-law protection while maintaining an appropriate balance with the right to freedom of expression. This study examines the criminal protection of the State's national symbols through a comparative legal analysis. It identifies the legal nature of national symbols, determines the protected legal interest underlying their criminalization, and examines the substantive legal rules governing criminal offences against such symbols in selected comparative legal systems. The study further analyzes constitutional provisions, criminal legislation, and relevant judicial decisions in order to identify areas of convergence and divergence in criminal policy. The study argues that the criminal protection of national symbols is intended not only to safeguard the physical integrity of tangible symbols, such as national flags, but also to preserve the constitutional values, sovereign authority, and institutional legitimacy embodied and represented by national symbols. The study also examines the constituent elements of offences against national symbols, including the actus reus and mens rea, the scope of criminalization, applicable criminal sanctions, aggravating circumstances, and criminal attempts where expressly regulated. Particular attention is devoted to the challenges posed by digital communication platforms, artificial intelligence, and deepfake technologies, which have significantly expanded the means through which national symbols may be targeted. The study concludes that comparative legal systems adopt divergent approaches regarding both the scope of criminal protection afforded to national symbols and the severity of criminal sanctions