مفهوم اصل جبران همه‌ خسارات و مطالعه نفی آن در نظریات کثرت‌گرای حقوق مسوولیت مدنی

هدف اصلی نگارندگان در این مقاله ابتدا بررسی مفهوم اصل جبران همه‌ خسارات و سپس نشان دادن نسبتی بوده که این اصل با نظریات مبنایی کثرت‌گرای حقوق مسئولیت مدنی برقرار می‌کند. در آغاز اثبات شد که طبق تعریفی دقیق‌تر حقوق مسئولیت مدنی شاخه‌ای از حقوق است که وظیفه‌ اخذ تصمیم در برابر پدیده‌‌ زیان را بر عهده دارد و چنین واکنشی نیز لزوماً و در همه‌ موارد حکم به جبران خسارت نیست. در مقام بیان مفهوم اصل جبران همه‌ خسارات نشان داده شد که دست‌کم دو خوانش حداکثری و حداقلی از این اصل در آثار موافقان اصل به چشم می‌خورد. در این مقاله این خوانش‌ها به تفصیل مورد بررسی قرار گرفته و تناقض‌های موجود در این خوانش‌ها فرا روی نهاده شد. سوال دیگر در این مقاله ناظر بر نسبتی بوده که اصل جبران همه‌ خسارات با نظریات کثرت‌گرای حقوق مسئولیت مدنی برقرار می‌کند. فرضیه‌ نگارندگان در این مقاله این بوده که هیچ نظریه‌‌ کثرت‌گرایی وجود ندارد که اصل جبران همه‌ خسارات را به عنوان یکی از اصول راهنمای تصمیم‌گیری در حوزه‌ مسئولیت مدنی پذیرفته باشد. نویسندگان با روش توصیفی – تحلیلی و با مراجعه به منابع کتابخانه‌ای دریافتند که از هیچ‌یک از این نظریات، اصل جبران همه‌ خسارات مستفاد نمی‌شود.

the investigation of the concept of the principle of compensating all damages and its denial in the pluralistic philosophical foundations of tort law

the examination of iranians’ writings on tort law reveals that a significant number of jurists adhere to the maxim known as &the principle of compensating all damages.& this principle holds that if the other two requirements of liability, namely causation and harmful act, are satisfied, all damages, regardless of their nature, should be compensated without the need for a specific law explicitly prescribing such compensation. in essence, unless there is a law expressly prohibiting compensation, any damage ought to be duly compensated.the authors of this essay embark on an examination of the rule that mandates the payment of compensation for all damages and its connection to the pluralistic philosophical foundations of tort law. in pursuing this objective, it is crucial to establish that tort law encompasses more than merely compensating damages. by employing a more comprehensive definition, tort law can be understood as a legal discipline that bears the responsibility of responding to the phenomenon of loss. this response, however, does not always manifest as an obligation to provide monetary compensation for the harm suffered.in the subsequent section of the article, we delve into the various interpretations of the principle of compensating all damages within iranian legal doctrines. through extensive research and analysis of relevant legal literature, we identify at least two distinct interpretations: the maximal and minimal interpretations. the maximal interpretation posits that the mere occurrence of a loss is sufficient for the legal system to demand compensation. even in cases where the causes of the loss are unknown or the tortfeasor is bankrupt, the government is deemed responsible for compensating the damage. in this interpretation, responsibility is not contingent upon fault, thereby implying that individuals may be required to compensate for damages even if they have not committed any wrongdoing.on the other hand, the minimal interpretation maintains the principle of compensating all damages while incorporating fault as the criterion for establishing responsibility. however, we shed light on the unsolvable paradoxes that arise from this interpretation. one such paradox emerges from the fact that while the goal is to compensate all damages, responsibility remains dependent on fault, adhering to the general principle of tort law: no fault, no compensation. consequently, in situations where no explicit statute mandates compensation, damages would go uncompensated, contradicting the aim purported by this interpretation.despite the disparities between the maximal and minimal interpretations, the underlying essence of the principle can be summarized as follows: &the principle of compensating all damages when no express law exists.& although the phrase &when no express law exists& is not explicitly stated within the principle, it can be inferred from the explanations provided by proponents of this principle and the situations in which they apply it. in order to substantiate this interpretation of the principle, it becomes necessary to delve into the philosophical foundations of tort law.