In contemporary public law discourse, the efficiency of the state in safeguarding the right to security is no longer assessed merely by its capacity for criminal reaction, but increasingly by its ability to manage risks proactively and to ensure the ex ante protection of public security as one of the most fundamental rights of citizens. This study aims to analyze crime prevention as a core function of the state within the framework of public rights. While public security is a prominent manifestation of public rights, crime prevention has been predominantly examined from a criminological perspective, with its legal and institutional dimensions largely overlooked. To address this gap, the present research employs an analytical–comparative method to examine the experiences of Japan, Finland, and the United Arab Emirates as representatives of community-based, social, and situational models of crime prevention. The analysis reveals that Japan has achieved this objective through legislation promoting local participatory governance; Finland, by integrating social prevention into the legal framework of the welfare state; and the UAE, by utilizing technologically driven situational prevention and establishing clear distribution of responsibilities. The common denominator of these successful models lies in the existence of coherent legal frameworks and efficient institutional structures that facilitate coordination and balance between state authority and citizens’ rights. Ultimately, the study argues that crime prevention is not merely a policing or administrative measure, but a legal instrument for realizing the right to security as a component of public rights. The fulfillment of this right depends less on the philosophical orientation of preventive approaches than on precise institutional design, transparent legislation, and the rational distribution of governmental responsibilities.