The Extent to Which the Fault Is Required as a Basic Element of the Tortious Liability in the Iraqi Civil Law: An Analytical Comparative Study

Younis Ali
{"title":"The Extent to Which the Fault Is Required as a Basic Element of the Tortious Liability in the Iraqi Civil Law: An Analytical Comparative Study","authors":"Younis Ali","doi":"10.11648/j.ijls.20240701.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Author has done his utmost to draw distinctions between the Iraqi civil law No. (40) of 1951 from one hand and the Islamic jurisprudence, the English common law and some other Arab comparative laws. Although the Iraqi civil law is affected by the Islamic jurisprudence, and borrows the term of guaranteeing the harmful act from the juristic maxims of this jurisprudence. But it adopts impliedly the concept of the fault in the first paragraph of the article (186), by stipulating the willfulness or encroachment of both the perpetrator and the abettor. Thus confusing between the system of the guarantee and that of the liability. Unlike the Islamic jurisprudence which adopts the idea of guaranteeing the harmful act, and distinguishes obviously between the guaranteeing of the perpetrator and that of the abettor. Or between the act done directly by perpetration and indirectly by causation, and does not recognize the idea of the fault. As far as the English common law is concerned, it adopts the fault-based liability as a general principle, the same is true for the Egyptian civil law No. 131 of 1948. Whereas both the Jordanian Civil Law No. 43 of 1976, and the Federal civil transactions law No. 5 of 1985 of the United Arab Emirates adopt the idea of guaranteeing the harm rather than the fault. The problem of the research lies in the confusion, embarrassment and perplexity in the situation of the Iraqi civil law concerning the basic element of the fault in the tortious liability. Therefore the author tries hard to solve confusion, remove both the embarrassment and perplexity by analyzing the true situation of the Iraqi civil law towards this basic element, and comparing it with the Islamic jurisprudence, which is considered as its original historical source, by which it is highly affected. As well as the English common law, considered as the leading legal system within the Anglo-American legal system, and different from the civil law system, led by the French civil code, by which the Iraqi civil law is indirectly affected, through being affected by the Egyptian civil law. The author suggests some relevant recommendations, the most important of which is thedistinction between the system of the liability and that of guaranteeing the harmful act, and adopt the former in the case of the damage done by perpetration, and the latter in the case of the damage done by causation.","PeriodicalId":375311,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Society","volume":"288 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20240701.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Author has done his utmost to draw distinctions between the Iraqi civil law No. (40) of 1951 from one hand and the Islamic jurisprudence, the English common law and some other Arab comparative laws. Although the Iraqi civil law is affected by the Islamic jurisprudence, and borrows the term of guaranteeing the harmful act from the juristic maxims of this jurisprudence. But it adopts impliedly the concept of the fault in the first paragraph of the article (186), by stipulating the willfulness or encroachment of both the perpetrator and the abettor. Thus confusing between the system of the guarantee and that of the liability. Unlike the Islamic jurisprudence which adopts the idea of guaranteeing the harmful act, and distinguishes obviously between the guaranteeing of the perpetrator and that of the abettor. Or between the act done directly by perpetration and indirectly by causation, and does not recognize the idea of the fault. As far as the English common law is concerned, it adopts the fault-based liability as a general principle, the same is true for the Egyptian civil law No. 131 of 1948. Whereas both the Jordanian Civil Law No. 43 of 1976, and the Federal civil transactions law No. 5 of 1985 of the United Arab Emirates adopt the idea of guaranteeing the harm rather than the fault. The problem of the research lies in the confusion, embarrassment and perplexity in the situation of the Iraqi civil law concerning the basic element of the fault in the tortious liability. Therefore the author tries hard to solve confusion, remove both the embarrassment and perplexity by analyzing the true situation of the Iraqi civil law towards this basic element, and comparing it with the Islamic jurisprudence, which is considered as its original historical source, by which it is highly affected. As well as the English common law, considered as the leading legal system within the Anglo-American legal system, and different from the civil law system, led by the French civil code, by which the Iraqi civil law is indirectly affected, through being affected by the Egyptian civil law. The author suggests some relevant recommendations, the most important of which is thedistinction between the system of the liability and that of guaranteeing the harmful act, and adopt the former in the case of the damage done by perpetration, and the latter in the case of the damage done by causation.
伊拉克民法中要求过错作为侵权责任基本要素的程度:分析比较研究
作者尽力将伊拉克 1951 年第(40)号民法与伊斯兰法学、英国普通法和其他一些阿拉伯比较法区分开来。尽管伊拉克民法受到伊斯兰法学的影响,并借用了伊斯兰法学格言中的有害行为担保一词。但它在第 186 条第 1 款中隐含地采用了过错的概念,规定行为人和教唆犯都必须是故意或侵占。这就混淆了保证制度和责任制度。而伊斯兰法学则不同,它采用了对有害行为提供担保的思想,并明显区分了对行为人和教唆犯的担保。或者区分直接实施的行为和间接因果关系实施的行为,而不承认过错的概念。英国普通法将过错责任作为一般原则,埃及 1948 年第 131 号民法也是如此。而约旦 1976 年第 43 号民法和阿拉伯联合酋长国 1985 年第 5 号联邦民事交易法都采用了保证损害而非过错的理念。本研究的问题在于伊拉克民法对侵权责任中过错这一基本要素的混乱、尴尬和困惑。因此,作者通过分析伊拉克民法在这一基本要素方面的真实情况,并将其与被视为其原始历史渊源的伊斯兰法学进行比较,努力解决混乱,消除尴尬和困惑。此外,英国普通法被认为是英美法系中的主要法律体系,与以法国民法典为首的大陆法系不同,伊拉克民法受到埃及民法的影响,从而间接受到其影响。作者提出了一些相关建议,其中最重要的建议是区分责任制度和有害行为担保制度,在因实施行为造成损害的情况下采用前者,在因因果关系造成损害的情况下采用后者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信