Modern piracy poses a significant challenge to global stability, jeopardizing international order and creating insecurity on the world's waterways. While reminiscent of traditional piracy, contemporary piracy manifests in distinct forms that diverge from its classical antecedent, particularly in terms of violence, the breadth of activities, methods employed, and underlying motives. Currently, the jurisdiction over these offenses rests with domestic courts. Despite the concerted efforts of the international community to prosecute perpetrators within these courts, both governments and international law have encountered considerable obstacles in achieving success. A particularly contentious issue is the jurisdictional complexities faced by governments during legal proceedings. In light of various United Nations Security Council resolutions, the concept of universal jurisdiction has evolved, albeit subject to diverse interpretations. The Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted specific procedural frameworks to address this issue. In accordance with Iranian law, both universal and territorial as well as personal jurisdictions are invoked to combat the immunity associated with modern piracy. The provisions articulated in Articles 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 of the Islamic Penal Code unequivocally indicate that the Islamic Republic of Iran possesses substantial jurisdiction over individuals accused of modern piracy. Nevertheless, it is evident that legislative capacity remains underutilized, particularly concerning the existing gaps and deficiencies in the definitions and punitive measures related to piracy within the Islamic Penal Code. This has inadvertently resulted in piracy being perceived as a subset of other criminal offenses. Nonetheless, Iranian courts, grounded in the principles of universality, territoriality, and personal jurisdiction as delineated in the aforementioned Articles of the Islamic Penal Code, do indeed possess the requisite authority to adjudicate piracy cases.