Compensation for government negligence in preventing harmful events under Iraqi and Iranian law

Abstract

This research aims to study compensation for governmental liability for failing to prevent harmful events in Iraqi and Iranian law. Its significance lies in clarifying the limits within which the government can be held accountable for damages resulting from harmful events, particularly when the harm could have been prevented or its effects mitigated through legally mandated measures and procedures. Furthermore, its importance lies in striking a balance between the requirements of the public interest and the right of individuals to fair compensation for damages incurred due to governmental negligence. A comparison between the Iraqi and Iranian experiences is also crucial for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each legal framework. The research primarily employs a comparative approach, examining the legal provisions and rules governing governmental liability and compensation for damages in Iraq and Iran. Additionally, a descriptive-analytical method is used to analyze relevant legislative and constitutional texts, jurisprudential opinions, and judicial principles. The goal is to determine the nature of governmental liability, the conditions for its establishment, the means of redressing resulting damages, and to highlight the points of agreement and disagreement between the two systems. The research yielded several key findings, most notably that the government's responsibility for preventing harmful events is not established merely upon the occurrence of harm. Rather, it fundamentally requires proof of the government's breach of a legal duty, the existence of the harm, and a causal link between the negligence and the harm. The research also revealed that while Iraqi and Iranian law, in principle, recognize the injured party's right to compensation, the legal framework governing the government's responsibility differs in its clarity and scope. Monetary compensation is the most common method in both systems, although in-kind and non-monetary compensation are important in cases where monetary compensation is insufficient to redress the harm. Furthermore, the study highlighted the need to develop legislative frameworks in both countries to more precisely define the government's responsibility for negligence in preventing harmful events.