Islamic Law

Islamic Law

Fault-based civil liability and some fundamental philosophical debates

Document Type : Original Article

Author
mahdi Ghiasvand
Assistant Professor, Kharazmi University, Iran.
Abstract
Some jurists use the criterion of fault as the philosophical basis of civil liability. This article, aims to exploring relationship between this criterion and some epistemological, ethical and ontological debates; Or to be more precise, dependence of using this criterion on some main philosophical debates. It has been argued that Fault-based civil liability (1) at least in some of its versions, implies free will; But not in all its versions; That is, it can be impartial to philosophical disputes over free will, (2) depends on the idea of naturalism about human persons and the idea of nature as a deterministic mechanism, (3) In combination with cognitivism, implies realism; But again, not in all its versions, (4) when the fault is considered non-personal, is not consistent with non-realism but it does not depend on taking sides in naïve-critical realism debate and at last (5) considering fault as non-personal, in itself does not implies cognitivism or non-cognitivism, but in the right and justice paradigm, implies cognitivism.
Keywords
civil liability
fault
right and justice paradigm. free will
realism
determinism

Subjects

  1. بادینی، حسن؛ فلسفه مسئولیت مدنی؛ تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار، 1384.
  2. حکمت‌نیا، محمود؛ «مسئولیت مدنی در قرآن»، فقه و حقوق؛ ش15، 1386، ص7ـ38.
  3. صانعی دره‌بیدی، منوچهر؛ فلسفه حقوق کانت؛ تهران: انتشارات نقش و نگار، 1395.
  4. کاتوزیان، ناصر؛ مسئولیت مدنی: الزام‌های خارج از قرارداد؛ ج1، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، 1393.
  5. هولمز، رابرت؛ مبانی فلسفه اخلاق؛ ترجمه مسعود علیا؛ تهران : نشر ققنوس، 1385.
  6. Cooke, j.: 2009. Law of Tort, 9th edition, Pearson.
  7. Starvapoulos, L.: 1996. Objectivity in Law, CLARENDON PRESS.
  8. Dore, I.: 2007. The epistemological foundation of law, Carolina: Academic Press.
  9. Elliot, C. & Quinn, F.: 2017. Tort Law, Pearson, 11TH edition.
  10. Gardner, J.: 2017. "The Negligence Standard: Political Not Metaphysical", The modern law review, vol. 80, no. 1.
  11. Huntington, C.: 1980. Legal Philosophy from Plato to Hegel, The John Hopkins University Press.
  12. Coleman, J.: 2015. "Theories of the Common Law of Torts", Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  13. Owen, D.: 1995. Philosophical Foundations of Fault in Tort Law, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
  14. O'Connor, T.: 2018. "Free Will", Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  15. Honore, A. & Gardner, J.: 2001. "Causation in the law", Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  16. Conry, E. & Beck-Dudley, C.: 1993. "Meta-Jurisprudence: the epistemology of law", American Business Law Journal, Vol. 33.
  17. Gardner, J.: 2014. "What Is Tort Law?", In: Philosophical Foundations Of The Law Of Torts, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
  18. Ripstein, A.: 2014, "Philosophy of Tort Law", in: Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law.
  19. Ellul, J.: 1969. Theological Foundations of Law, DOUBLEDAY AND COMPANY.
  20. Beever, A.: 2007. Rediscovering the Law of Negligence, HART PUBLISHING.
  21. Kramer, M.: 2007. Objectivity and the Rule of Law, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
  22. Giliker, B.: 2010. Vicarious Liability in Tort: A Comparative Perspective, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
  23. Chapman, B.: 2001. "Pluralism In Tort and Accident Law: Towards A Reasonable Accommodation", In: Philosophy And The Law Of Torts, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
  24. Sharvell, S.: 2004. Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law, Harvard University Press.