A Critical Examination of Legal Pluralism and Some of the Pluralistic Views in the Area of the Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor of Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22059/jcl.2022.340273.634327

Abstract

Can monist theories that address tort law's philosophical foundations, such as corrective and distributive justice or optimal deterrence, manage the enormous diversity of circumstances that tort law now handles? The answer appears to be no. In the normative phase, monist theories seek to assure us that all laws must be designed to achieve a certain goal, while in the descriptive phase; they seek to demonstrate that all components of tort law are grounded on a single logic. This poses substantial obstacles for these theories, to the point that it appears we cannot accept monist theories philosophically or practically, suggesting that resorting to plural theories is the final option given the variety of circumstances that tort law must deal with today. In this study, we examined and analyzed four pluralistic theories in the realm of the philosophical foundations of tort law after assessing their explanations and premises. Each of these ideas has some beneficial traits that contributed to their success as a plural theory, but they also have some severe defects that render them insufficient when used as a coherent and effective theory. While embracing the plural approach, the authors of this essay suggest that present pluralistic approaches to the philosophical underpinnings of tort law have numerous severe shortcomings. A cohesive, effective plural theory could yet be created, in our opinion. Finally, we sketched out the outlines of such a theory and will go into further depth in another essay that will be published to our legal community in the near future.

Keywords

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    - کتاب‏ها

    1. بابایی، ایرج (1394). حقوق مسئولیت مدنی و الزامات خارج از قرارداد، چ 1، تهران: نشر میزان.
    2. بهرامی احمدی، حمید (1390). قواعد فقه، قاعده‏ی لاضرر، ج 2، چ 2، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه امام صادق.
    3. بهرامی احمدی، حمید (1393). ضمان قهری، چ 2، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه امام صادق.
    4. صفایی، سید حسین و رحیمی، حبیب‏الله (1397). مسئولیت مدنی تطبیقی، چ 1، تهران: مؤسسۀ مطالعات و پژوهش‏های حقوقی شهر دانش.
    5. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1385). حقوق مدنی، الزام‏های خارج از قرارداد، چ 5، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
    6. مهمان‏نوازان، روح‏الله (1390). خسارات قابل جبران در حقوق ایران، چ 2، تهران: مجمع علمی و فرهنگی مجد.
    7. یزدانیان، علیرضا (1386). قواعد عمومی مسئولیت مدنی، چ 1، تهران: نشر میزان.

     

    - مقالات

    1. رحیمی، حبیب‏الله و شاهرخی، سید نورالله (1400). بررسی اصل جبران همه‏ی خسارات از حیث انطباق با مبانی وحدت‏گرا در حوزه‏ی فلسفه‏ی مسئولیت مدنی. مطالعات حقوقی، ش 2، تابستان.
    2. قربان‏نیا، ناصر (1377). مطالعه‏ای پیرامون مسؤولیت مدنی دولت در فقه امامیه و حقوق موضوعه. نامۀ مفید، ش 13، بدون فصل.

     

    ب) عربی

    1. مراغى، سید میر عبدالفتاح‏بن على حسینى (1417ق). العناوین الفقهیه، ج 2، چ 1، قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامى وابسته به جامعۀ مدرسین حوزۀ علمیۀ قم.

     

     

     

    ج) لاتین

    - Books

    1. Abraham, Kenneth s. (2007). the Forms and Functions of Tort Law, New York: Foundation Press.
    2. Englard, Izhak (1993). The Philosophy of Tort Law, Dartmouth Publishing Company.
    3. Englard, Izhak (1995). (The Idea of Complementarity as a Philosophical Basis for Pluralism in Tort Law), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    4. Fletcher, George P. (1996). Basic Concepts of Legal Thought, New York: Oxford University Press.
    5. Geistfeld, Mark (2001 a). (Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, New York: Cambridge University Press.
    6. Hillman, Robert a. (1997). The Richness of Contract Law, New York: Springer.
    7. Landes, William M.; Posner, Richard A. (1987). The Economic Structure of Tort Law, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    8. Palmer, Michael (1995). Moral Problems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    9. Rogers, W. v. h. (2002). Winfield and Jolowicz on Torts, London: Sweet & Maxwell. 16th edition.
    10. Shapo, Marshall S. (1993). Products Liability and the Search for Justice, Carolina: Carolina Academic.
    11. Williams, Glanville L. (1951). The Aims of the Law of Tort, 4 Current Legal Problems, in Lunney, Mark; Oliphant, KEN, (2008). Tort Law: Text & Materials, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
    12. Weinrib, Ernest J. (1995). The Idea of Private Law, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

     

    - Articles

    1. Bohr, Niels (1939). Natural Philosophy and Human Cultures. Nature Magazine, Vol. 143.
    2. Calabresi, Guido (1961). Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts. Yale Law Journal, Vol. 70.
    3. Englard, Izhak (2005). The Cost of Accidents: A Retrospect View from the Cathedral. Maryland Law Review, Vol. 64 (1).
    4. Folse Jr., Henry J. (1990). Complementarity and the Description of Nature in Biological Science. Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 5.
    5. Geistfeld, Mark (2001 b). Reconciling Cost-Benefit Analysis with the Principle That Safety Matters More Than Money. New York University Law Review, Vol. 76.
    6. Goldberg, John C. P. (2003). Twentieth Century Tort Theory. the Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 91 (3).
    7. Goldberg, John C. P. (2008). Ten Half-Truths about Tort Law. Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 42 (4).
    8. Keating, Gregory (1997). The Idea of Fairness in the Law of Enterprise Liability. Michigan Law Review, Vol. 95 (5).
    9. Levin, Avner (2001). Quantum Physics in Private Law. the Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, Vol. 14.
    10. Merry, Sally Engle (1988). Legal Pluralism. Law & Society Review, Vol. 22 (5).
    11. Oman, Nathan (2005). Unity and Pluralism in Contract Law. Michigan Law Review, Vol. 103 (6)..
    12. Perry, Ronen (2015). Pluralistic Legal Theories: In Search of a Common Denominator. Tulane Law Review, Vol. 90.
    13. Perry, Stephen R. (1992). The Moral Foundations of Tort Law. Iowa Law Review, Vol. 77.
    14. Posner, Richard A. (1975). The Economic Approach to Law. Texas Law Review, Vol. 53.
    15. Posner, Richard A. (1980). The Value of Wealth: A Comment on Dworkin and Kronman. Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 9 (2).
    16. Robinette, Christopher J. (2005). Can There Be a Unified Theory of Torts? A Pluralist Suggestion from History and Doctrine. Brandeis Law Journal, Vol. 43.
    17. Schwartz, Gary T. (1996). Mixed Theories of Tort Law: Affirming Both Deterrence and Corrective Justice. Texas Law Review, Vol. 75 (7).
    18. Trakman, Leon (2009). Pluralism in Contract Law, Buffalo Law Review, Vol. 58 (5).
    19. Wright, Richard W. (1987). The Efficiency Theory of Causation and Responsibility: Unscientific Formalism and False Semantics. Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 63 (3).
Comparative Law Review
Volume 13, Issue 2 - Serial Number 26
Autumn & Winter 2022-2023
September 2022
Pages 577-601

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics