The Interest Theory as the Basis for the Rights of the Deceased

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Islamic and Private Law Department, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran,

2 PhD in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran,

10.22059/jlq.2026.386455.1007962

Abstract

Introduction
The question of whether deceased persons can possess rights has long been among the most challenging issues in legal philosophy and moral theory. Traditional legal systems generally assume that legal personality ends with death; therefore, a deceased individual can no longer hold rights or obligations. This assumption is reflected in many legal systems, including Iranian law, where legal capacity is usually understood to terminate upon death. However, despite the formal end of legal personality, many contemporary legal systems continue to recognize and protect certain interests associated with deceased persons. Examples include the protection of bodily integrity after death, respect for burial wishes, enforcement of wills, preservation of reputation, and the continuation of moral rights in intellectual property.
The persistence of these protections poses an important theoretical problem: if the deceased no longer exist as legal persons, on what basis can these protections be justified? In response, legal philosophers have proposed various theories concerning the nature and foundation of rights. Two of the most influential approaches are the Will Theory and the Interest Theory. According to the Will Theory, rights are grounded in the autonomy and freedom of the right-holder and require the capacity to exercise choice or control over duties. In contrast, the Interest Theory argues that rights exist primarily to protect significant interests or benefits belonging to an individual.
This article focuses on the Interest Theory as the most convincing basis for recognizing the rights of the deceased. According to this theory, rights are justified whenever an individual possesses interests important enough to impose duties upon others. Some human interests persist beyond biological death, such as interests in reputation, dignity, testamentary wishes, bodily integrity, and symbolic legacy. Consequently, the deceased may still be regarded as holders of certain rights. The theory therefore expands the category of right-holders beyond living human beings and acknowledges that some interests survive the end of physical life.
The article also distinguishes between traditional and modern interpretations of the Interest Theory. Classical utilitarian thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill primarily justified posthumous protections on the grounds of social utility and the prevention of harm to living persons. Modern theorists, including Joseph Raz, Matthew Kramer, Neil MacCormick, and Daniel Sperling, have developed broader approaches that recognize the independent moral relevance of deceased persons themselves. These scholars emphasize continuing interests, symbolic existence, and the deceased’s ongoing membership in the moral community of humanity.
The main objective of this study is to explain how the Interest Theory justifies posthumous rights and to demonstrate that it provides a stronger foundation for the rights of the deceased than competing theories, especially the Will Theory.
 Methodology
This research employs a descriptive-analytical method based on legal philosophy, ethics, and comparative jurisprudence. The research also adopts a comparative legal approach by examining examples from Iranian law and broader legal systems.
 Conclusions
The study concludes that the Interest Theory provides the most persuasive philosophical and legal basis for recognizing rights of the deceased. Unlike the Will Theory, which depends on autonomy and the ability to exercise choice, the Interest Theory focuses on protecting significant interests. Since many human interests survive death, the end of biological life does not necessarily eliminate all grounds for rights.
The research demonstrates that deceased persons may continue to possess interests in reputation, dignity, bodily integrity, testamentary wishes, and symbolic identity. Harm inflicted on these interests may undermine values central to the person’s life and identity. Furthermore, the deceased remain symbolically connected to society through memory, legacy, family relations, and cultural identity. In this sense, they continue to belong to the moral community of humanity even after death.
The article also concludes that modern interpretations of the Interest Theory are more successful than classical utilitarian approaches in explaining posthumous rights. While traditional theorists primarily justified these rights on the grounds of benefits to living persons, modern theorists recognize the deceased themselves as morally relevant subjects. Concepts such as symbolic existence and continuing moral membership provide a stronger ethical basis for legal protection after death.
Nevertheless, posthumous rights are not absolute or unlimited. Their duration and scope depend on the nature of the relevant interests and the extent to which those interests remain socially meaningful. Some rights, such as protection of reputation or moral rights in intellectual property, may endure for a long period, whereas others may gradually fade over time.
Ultimately, the Interest Theory adeptly broadens the conventional scope of legal rights by acknowledging that certain human interests transcend corporeal existence. Within this paradigm, the deceased are perceived not merely as subjects of reverence but as ongoing possessors of morally and legally substantial interests meriting safeguarding.
 
 

Keywords

References

منابع
ابن رشد، محمد بن احمد (2015 م) ، بدایۀ المجتهد و نهایۀ المقتصد، چ 4، قاهره: المکتبه الشروق الدولیۀ.
ادیبی، احمد؛ الشریف، محمدمهدی؛ آرش‌پور، علیرضا (1402). بررسی تطبیقی تداوم حقوق پس از مرگ و امکان طرح نظریۀ شخصیت حقوقی متوفا. مجلۀ پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، (10)، شمارۀ پیاپی 37، 1-24: doi: 10.22091/csiw.2023.9180.2397
اسفهبدی، خسرو؛ عباسعلی سلطانی؛ محمدتقی قبولی درافشان (1399). بررسی حقوق معنویِ میّت با تأکید بر حکم حدّ قذفِ میّت در فقه امامیه. فصلنامۀ جستارهای فقهی و اصولی، (6)، شمارۀ پیاپی 21، 163- 194: doi:10.22034/jrj.2019.53083.1608
اسمارت، جی. جی. سی (1392). فایده‌گرایی (دانشنامة فلسفة اخلاق). ترجمۀ انشاءا.. رحمتی، چ اول، تهران: سوفیا.
انصاری، مرتضی (1411ق). المکاسب. چ اول، قم: دارالذخایر.
جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1387). مجموعه محشی قانون مدنی. چ سوم، تهران: گنج دانش.
سلیمانی درچه، محمد (۱۳۹۳). آشنایی با مفهوم حقوق عمومی و بررسی مفهوم حق. تهران: پژوهشکدۀ شورای نگهبان.
شفیعی سردشت، جعفر (1394). نزاع اراده‌گرایان و سودگرایان در مفهوم حق. تحقیقات حقوقی، 18(69)، 209 - 246: https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_56271.html (20 شهریور 1403).
شهید ثانی، زین الدین بن علی، (1268 ه.ق)، مسالک الافهام فی شرح شرایع الاسلام، ج 2، دارالهدی للطباعه و النشر.
طالبی، محمدحسین (1390). چالشی در مهم‌ترین نظریه‌های فلسفی غرب دربارۀ معنای حق. دوفصلنامۀ حقوق تطبیقی، شماره 21، شماره پیاپی 88، - 122:
https://journals.mofidu.ac.ir/article_47010.html (2 مرداد 1403)
قاری‌سیدفاطمی، سیدمحمد (1382). حقوق بشر در جهان معاصر: درآمدی بر مباحث نظری: مفاهیم، مبانی، قلمرو و منابع (ج 1). چ اول، تهران: شهر دانش.
کاپلستون، فردریک (1388). تاریخ فلسفه. ترجمۀ جلال الدین مجتبوی، ج8، تهران: علمی و فرهنگی سروش.
کاتوزیان، ناصر (۱۳۹۵). مبانی حقوق عمومی. چ ششم تهران: میزان.
کاظمی، محمد (1400). «نظریه قائم مقامی ورثه در فقه اسلامی و حقوق موضوعه ایران»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دوره 51، شماره 3، 523-545.  
 doi: 10.22059/JLQ.2021.292796.1007305    
کرباسی، محمدابراهیم بن علی(1431 ق)، الإرث فی الفقه الجعفری. بیروت: موسسۀ الاعلمی للمطبوعات.
کلینی، ابوجعفر(1367). الفروع من الکافی. ج 7، چ سوم، تهران: دارالکتاب الاسلامیه.
گرجی، ابوالقاسم (1378). مناسبات حق و تکلیف از دیدگاه اسلام. مجلۀ مجتمع آموزش عالی قم، (2)، 5 - 18. http://noo.rs/y4Fuc (2 مرداد 1403)
مظهرقراملکی، علی؛ قدرتی فاطمه؛ نظری توکلی، سعید (1395). شاخصه‌ها و احکام حقوق وابسته به شخصیت انسان. فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، 49(۲)، 279 - 293:  http://noo.rs/lOCAN  (20 شهریور 1403)
موسوی خمینی، روح الله (1392)، ترجمه تحریرالوسیله، ج1، چ چهارم، تهران: چاپ و نشر عروج.
میرشکاری، عباس (1398). بهره‌برداری تجاری از شهرت درگذشتگان. مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی، (22)، شمارۀ پیاپی 85، 97- 120: doi:10.29252/lawresearch.22.85.97
میل، جان استوارت(1385). رساله درباره آزادی، ترجمه: جواد شیخ الاسلامی، چاپ پنجم، تهران: شرکت انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
نجفی، محمدحسن(1362). جواهرالکلام فی شرح شرایع الاسلام، ج چهلم، چاپ هفتم، بیروت: دار إحیاء التراث العربی.
والدرون، جرمی (1381). «فلسفه حق»، ترجمه: محمدرضا ظفری، مجله علوم سیاسى، شماره 18، صص 149 تا 183:http://noo.rs/cor2d (3 مرداد 1403).
 
References
Adibi, A., al-Sharif, M. M., &  Arashpour, A. (2023). A Comparative Study of the Continuity of Rights after Death and the Possibility of Recognizing the Legal Personality of the Deceased. Journal of Comparative Research on Islamic and Western Law 10(37),1-24
    doi: 10.22091/csiw.2023.9180.2397
Ansari, M. (1411 AH). Al-Makasib. 1st ed. Beirut: Dar al-Dhakhair.
Aristotle (1985). Nicomachean Ethics. trans. Terence Irwin, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Belliotti, R. A. (1979). Do Dead Human Beings Have Rights?. The Personalist, 201-210.
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1468- 0114.1979.tb07174.x) (Accessed: 24 September 2024)
Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon.
Bentham, J. (1970). Of Laws in General. Edited by H. L. Hart, London: Athlone Press.
Bradley Ben (2009). Well-Being and Death. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brecher, B. (2002). Our Obligation to the Dead. 19(2) Journal of Applied Philosophy, 109-119
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-5930.00208 (Accessed: 23 September 2024)
Copleston, F. (2009). A History of Philosophy. Translated by Jalal al-Din Mojtabavi. Vol. 8. Tehran: Scientific and Cultural of Soroush Publications. [in Persian]
Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Epicurus (1994). The Art of Happiness. trans. George K. Strodach, New York: Penguin Books
Esfahbodi, K., Soltani, A. A., & Qabouli Dorafshan, M. T. (2020). An Examination of the Moral Rights of the Deceased with Emphasis on the Qadhf Right of the Dead in Imami Jurisprudence. Journal of Jurisprudential and Principled Studies 6(21), 163-194.
    doi:10.22034/jrj.2019.53083.1608
Golding, M. (1972). Obligations to Future Generations. The Monist, (56), 357 – 364.
https://academic.oup.com/monist/articleabstract/56/1/85/987648?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false (Accessed: 23 September 2024)
Gorji, A. (1999). The Relationship between Right and Duty from the Perspective of Islam. Journal of Qom Higher Education Complex, (2)..
     http://noo.rs/y4Fuc (Accessed: 23  July 2024)
Harel, A. (2004). Theories of Rights, Martin P. Golding & William A. Edmundson (eds.). The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, (73), 69-124.
      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9780470690116.ch13 (Accessed: 20 August 2024)
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan. ed. Richard Tuck, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ibn Rushd, Muhammad ibn Ahmad (2015). Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid. Vol. 2. Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Shuruq al-Dawliyyah.
Jafari Langroudi, M. J.r (2008). Annotated Collection of the Civil Code. 3rd ed. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh Publications.
Kamm, F.M. (2002). Rights. Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press.
Karbasi, Mohammad Ebrahim ibn Ali (1431 AH). Al-Irth fi al-Fiqh al-Ja‘fari. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-A‘lami li al-Matbu‘at.
Katouzian, N. (2016). Foundations of Public Law. 6th ed. Tehran: Mizan Publications.
Kazemi, M.(2021). Inheritance Subrogation Theory In The Islamic and Iranian Law, private Law studies Qunterly. Volume 51, Issue 3. pages 523-545. doi: 10.22059/JLQ.2021.292796.1007305 [in Persian]
Kramer, M. H. (2001a). Getting Rights Right. Rights, Wrong and Responsibilities, Cambridge: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kramer, M. H. (2001b). Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=258446 (Accessed: 08 October 2024)
Kulayni, Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub (1988). Al-Furu‘ min al-Kafi. Vol. 7. 3rd ed. Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah.
MacCormick, N. (1977). Rights in Legislation. Law, Morality and Society: Essays in Honor of H. L. A. Hart. Edited by P. Hacker & J. Raz. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacCormick, N. (1982). Children’s Rights: A Test-Case for Theories of Right. in MacCormick, Neil, legal Right and Social Democracy – Essays in Legal and Political Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mazhar Qaramalaki, A., Qodrati, F., & Nazari Tavakkoli, S. (2016). Characteristics and Rules Governing Rights Related to Human Personality. Islamic Jurisprudence and Foundations of Islamic Law 49(2), 279 – 293 http://noo.rs/lOCAN (Accessed:10 September 2024)
Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son
Mill, J. S. (1861). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn
Mill, J. S.t (2006). On Liberty. Translated by Javad Sheikh al-Eslami. 5th ed. Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publications. [in Persian]
Mirshekari, A. (2019). Commercial Exploitation of the Reputation of Deceased Persons. Legal Research Journal 22, (85), 97 – 120.
    doi:10.29252/lawresearch.22.85.97.
Mousavi Khomeini, R. (2013). Translation of Tahrir al-Wasilah. Vol. 1. 4th ed. Tehran: Orouj Publications, Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works.
Najafi Javaheri, M. H. (1983). Jawahir al-Kalam fi Sharh Shara’i al-Islam. Vol. 40. 7th ed. Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi.
Qari Seyyed Fatemi, S. M. (2003). Human Rights in the Contemporary World: An Introduction to Theoretical Discussions—Concepts, Foundations, Scope, and Sources. Vol. 1. 1st ed. Tehran: Shahr-e Danesh Legal Research Institute.
Raz, J. (1984). On the Nature of Rights. Mind, New Series, Vol.93, No.370,194-214. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2254002) (Accessed: 16 August 2024)
Raz, J. (1986). The Morality of Freedom, Oxford University Press.
Shafiei Sardasht, J. (2015). The Dispute between Will Theorists and   Utilitarian Theorists concerning the Concept of Right. Legal Research Journal 18(69), 209-246.
https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_56271.html (Accessed:10.09.2024)
Shahid al-Thani, Zayn al-Din ibn Ali (1850). Masalik al-Afham fi Sharh Shara’i al-Islam. Vol. 2. Qom: Dar al-Huda li al-Tiba‘ah wa al-Nashr.
Smart, J.J.C. (2013). Utilitarianism. In Encyclopedia of Moral Philosophy. Translated by Enshaallah Rahmati, 1st ed. Tehran: Sophia Publications. [in Persian]
Soleimani Dorcheh, M. (2014). Introduction to Public Rights and an Examination of the Concept of Right. Tehran: Guardian Council Research Institute.
Sperling, D. (2008). Posthumous Interests Legal and Ethical Perspectives, Part of Cambridge Law, Medicine and Ethics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Talebi, M. H. (2011). A Challenge to the Major Western Philosophical Theories concerning the Meaning of Right. Comparative Law Quarterly, (21), serial no. 88, 102 – 122.
https://journals.mofidu.ac.ir/article_47010.html(Accessed: 23 July 2024)
Waldron, J. (2002). Philosophy of The Right. Translated by Mohammad Reza Zafari. Political Science Journal (18),149 – 182 [in Persian]
http://noo.rs/cor2d (Accessed:24 July2024)
Law Quarterly
Volume 56, Issue 1
May 2026
Pages 87-116

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics