Jurisdiction over international electronic contracts is among the most challenging issues in private international law because of the cross-border nature of cyberspace and the possibility of competing jurisdictional claims by courts in multiple countries. This study examines the rules for determining jurisdiction over electronic contracts under Iranian and U.S. law, demonstrating that these rules extend beyond procedural matters to serve as instruments through which states exercise sovereignty and governance in cyberspace. The central research question is: How does judicial jurisdiction affect the exercise of sovereignty in the international system? Adopting a descriptive-analytical method, the study analyzes general and specific jurisdiction, the “minimum contacts” standard, the Zippo sliding-scale test, the “effects” and “targeting” tests, and case law concerning clickwrap and browsewrap agreements under U.S. law. For Iranian law, it examines the Electronic Commerce Act of 2003, the general rules of civil procedure, and the Civil Code. The findings indicate that, in the United States, a website’s mere accessibility is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant; courts instead consider the nature of the interactions and the defendant’s conduct. The enforceability of jurisdiction clauses also depends on clear disclosure and the consumer’s informed consent. By contrast, Iranian law contains no specific provision governing jurisdiction over electronic contracts, and courts rely on general rules concerning the defendant’s domicile, the place of contract formation, or the place of performance of the obligation. The differences between the two legal systems are not merely technical but reflect distinct approaches to sovereignty. The United States seeks to consolidate its normative influence by promoting the minimum contacts standard, whereas Iran relies on traditional jurisdictional criteria to preserve national judicial authority. In the absence of a unified global legal framework, jurisdictional rules have become strategic instruments for managing national interests in the digital sphere. The study recommends greater legal coordination among states to reduce tensions and establish a cooperative framework for cyber governance.