With the development of human societies in various aspects, including transportation, telecommunications, and computer systems, crime has acquired an extraterritorial character. Most criminal systems, relying on the protective principle, seek to prosecute and punish perpetrators of crimes committed outside territorial Sovereignty and against their fundamental interests and vital values. Protective principle is accepted in international criminal law as an exception to the territorial principle of criminal laws and Non-intervention in the sovereignty of other states. This situation has necessitated an investigation into the true basis of protective principle and its scope. The research purpose using a descriptive-analytical method is to examine the basis of protective principle in the comparison of three theories of punishment: Public interest, Retribution and Deterence. The research findings are that theories of Retribution and Deterrence are unable to justify of protective principle. The basis of protective principle, like territorial principle, is rooted in the theory of the public interest of a country's citizens. According to the latter theory, protective principle is only justifiable if it ensures the rights and security of all citizens by emphasizing the enforceable criminal system. Therefore, identifying the expanded protective principle in Article 5 of the Islamic Penal Code adopted in 2013 and Clause (c) of Article 28 of the Computer Crimes Law adopted in 2009 is in conflict with its foundation, based on the research findings.