As societies continue to evolve, legal systems are increasingly challenged to balance legal certainty, social justice, and the protection of individual rights. One of the most congested areas reflecting this tension is the application of criminal statutes of limitations, which determine the temporal boundaries within which criminal prosecutions may be initiated. This study examines divergent national approaches to criminal limitation periods and explores the philosophical, legal, and practical rationales underpinning these variations. Through comparative analysis of selected legal systems, the paper highlights how historical traditions, constitutional frameworks, and societal values shape differing policies on time-barred prosecutions. The findings suggest that while statutes of limitations promote procedural fairness and legal stability, overly rigid or overly flexible regimes may undermine accountability or victim access to justice. The study argues for a balanced model that accommodates evolving social expectations, particularly in relation to serious and transnational crimes, while preserving fundamental principles of legality and due process. By synthesizing comparative insights, this paper contributes to ongoing debates on reforming criminal limitation laws to better reflect contemporary justice needs.
Enkhbold Tserendorj Batbayar (Tue,) studied this question.