Law Quarterly

Law Quarterly

The Evolution of the Idea of Justice in Compensation

Document Type : Research Paper

Author
Ali Ghesmati Tabrizi
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.
10.22059/jlq.2026.408217.1008057
Abstract
Introduction
The demand for compensation has always been one of humanity's primary needs. To meet this need, various traditions have long governed this area, and numerous theories have shaped the legal system's rules.
In this progression, although an ideal compensation system should enable all injured parties to obtain fair recompense regardless of the search for the cause of the harm, this expectation was often unmet in the past or inadequately met under the influence of familial solidarity. Consequently, in step with social transformations, the law has had to develop different mechanisms to meet this growing demand for security. Following the identification of certain causes for liability in early civilizations and the legal obligation to compensate for damages, the "Principle of Responsibility" made it possible to provide for losses through a general rule based on various foundations such as fault, risk, etc., and finally, in the continuation of this path, special or automatic systems of compensation for damages were created. The question is, from a perspective of justice, what underlying thought justifies this evolution in law and the demand for compensation?
Some scholars, discussing the evolution of the compensation system, indicate that in this developmental process, the debt of responsibility transforms into the right to compensation. In this Analysis, when the corrective justice of responsibility cannot compensate for the adverse consequences of unfortunate events, it is replaced by the distributive justice of solidarity. As this analysis shows, the measure of justice that assesses damage can be either corrective or distributive, and this division reflects the difference that justifies the logic of compensation institutions and explains the consequences of choosing each one.
The concepts of corrective and distributive justice have been studied since ancient civilizations. The influence of these concepts on civil liability has also been frequently discussed and re-examined. Regardless of the philosophical debates, the role of distributive and corrective justice in compensation raises considerations and leads to legal consequences that warrant examination. Rather than repeatedly emphasizing definitions and theories, this article examines the role of corrective justice in compensation by considering legal realities, the relationships between the parties in a harmful event, and the motivations of third parties and groups responsible for providing compensation. It then argues that distributive justice is impossible in civil liability and examines the effects of separating distributive and corrective justice in compensation.
Method
This study uses a documentary and library research method to review conventional beliefs about ​​justice in compensation through a different legal analysis of theoretical data.

Conclusion
Facilities and costs are distributed among citizens according to the merits defined by each society. This division, whether correct or incorrect, has nothing to do with civil liability. Civil liability intervenes when an incident occurs and disrupts the predefined balance. Therefore, the question is whether, in this situation, civil responsibility can establish a new allocation of rights, or merely provide the possibility of ensuring justice in the redistribution of social opportunities and possibilities.
Compensation, in any form, whether based on corrective or distributive principles, is a means for achieving justice. Despite the development of various methods and principles presented as theories of compensation, the traditional framework of compensation and civil liability remains limited to the corrective idea. In principle, the various foundations of civil liability all agree that the burden of the loss must be returned to its agent. This agent, who is ultimately human, is responsible for the harmful act attributed to him, and compensation for the damages will be instead of her agency in the realization of the loss.
Furthermore, despite growing social demand for compensation, the closed framework of corrective justice cannot cover all adverse consequences. Therefore, alongside the expansion of civil liability, distributive justice (through social solidarity) supports corrective justice and even replaces it in some of the traditional duties of civil liability. In reality, the idea of distributive justice does not expand civil liability; rather, it directs a portion of the duty to compensate outside this institution. Moreover, distributive justice allows an approach in which coverage for new risks is provided, or compensation is provided that is not compensatory in nature.
Although developing compensation rights through the distributive idea is desirable, it should not go too far: on the one hand, civil liability cannot be replaced or erased, and conversely, the idea of compensatory justice is deeply rooted in it. On the other hand, accepting distributive justice must take various exigencies into account. Therefore, public institutions must respect budgetary requirements and financial capacity in this regard. Moreover, applying distributive justice and compensation outside the conventional liability system should not create a sense of discrimination or lead to unjustifiable disparity among victims of similar incidents. Attention to these issues and adopting the necessary measures and arrangements means that distributive justice plays a secondary role in compensation law and can only complement civil liability.


Keywords
Compensation Law
Civil Liability
Reparation
Corrective Justice
Distributive Justice
منابع
ارسطو (1378). اخلاق نیکوماخس. ترجمة محمدحسن لطفی، تهران: طرح نو.
انصاری، مرتضی (1415ق). کتاب المکاسب. ج 3، چ اول، قم: تراث الشیخ الأعظم.
بادینی، حسن (1384). فلسفۀ مسئولیت مدنی. تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
جوان، موسی (1326). مبانی حقوق. ج 1، تهران: شرکت چاپ رنگین.
خوانساری، موسی (1418ق). منیة الطالب فی حاشیة المکاسب (تقریرات ابحاث محمدحسین النائینی). ج 1، چ 1، قم: مؤسسة النشر الإسلامی جامعه المدرسین.
رحیمی، حبیب‌اله؛ طرف، فاطمه (1397). بررسی ویژگی‌های عدالت مطلوب در مادة اول قانون مسئولیت مدنی ایران در مقایسه با نظریة عدالت توزیعی جان راولز. فصلنامة پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، (25)، 59-88. Doi: 10.22054/jplr.2018.22442.1577
صفایی، سیدحسین؛ رحیمی، حبیب‌اله (1401). مسئولیت مدنی (الزامات خارج از قرارداد). ویرایش 4، چ هفدهم، تهران: سمت.
قسمتی تبریزی، علی (1389). اجتماعی کردن خطرات. دوفصلنامة حقوق تطبیقی، (2)، 61-78.
     (13 دی 1404)https://law.mofidu.ac.ir/article_46986.html
قسمتی تبریزی، علی (1396). تعهدات غرامتی و نفقه‌ای در مسئولیت مدنی. فصلنامة مطالعات فقه و حقوق اسلامی، (17)، 181-208. Doi: 10.22075/feqh.2017.10820.1055
کاتوزیان، ناصر (1376). قواعد عمومی قراردادها. ج 5، چ دوم، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
کاتوزیان، ناصر (1381). مسئولیت ناشی از عیب تولید. چ اول، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
کاظمی، محمود (1404). تأثیر رشد فناوری بر حقوق مسئولیت مدنی؛ تحول از دین مسئولیت به طلب جبران خسارت. دوفصلنامة تحقیق و توسعه در حقوق خصوصی، (3)، 310-343. Doi: 10.22034/jpl.2025.721256
مولودی، محمد؛ حاجی عزیزی، بیژن؛ غلامی، نگین (1397). مبانی اقتصادی توزیع خسارت در مسئولیت مدنی. مطالعات حقوقی، (29)، 227-258.Doi: 10.22099/jls.2018.26426.2533
 
References
Aristotle (1999). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Mohammad Hassan Lotfi, Tehran: Tarh-e-No. [In Persian]
Ansari, M. (1994). Makasib. Vol. 3, Qom: Toras-e Sheikh Al-Azam.
Badini, H. (2005). Philosophy of Civil Responsibility. Tehran: Publishing Company. [In Persian]
Caballero, F. (1981). Essai sur la notion juridique de la nuisance. Paris: L.G.D.J.
Carbonnier, J. (1997). Droit civil. Introduction, 25 éd, Paris: PUF.
Chéndé, F. (2023). Droit des obligations et des contrats. 3 éd, Paris: Dalloz.
Derida, F. (1972). Dommages-intérêts. Répertoire civil Dalloz, T 3.
Despotopoulos, C. (1968). La notion de synallagma chez Aristote, Archives de philosophie du droit. T 13, Sirey, 115-127.
Ewald, F. (1999). Entretien, Revue Risques, (40), 11-16.
Ewald, F. (9861). L’Etat providence. Paris: Bernard Grasset.
Ewald, F. (1996). Histoire de l’Etat providence, Paris: LGF.
Ewald, F. (1992). Responsabilité, Solidarité, Sécurité. Revue Risques, (10), 9-24.
Ghesmati Tabrizi, A. (2010). Socialization of Risks. Journal of Comparative Law, (2), 61-78. https://law.mofidu.ac.ir/article_46986.html?lang=en (Accessed:2 January 2026) [In Persian]
Ghesmati Tabrizi, A. (2017). Compensatory and Alimentary Obligations in Civil Responsibility. Journal of Studies in Islamic Law & Jurisprudence, (17), 181-208. Doi: 10.22075/feqh.2017.10820.1055 [In Persian]
Gout, O. (2004). La diversité des systèmes d’indemnisation, Revue Droit Civil, (10).
Henriot, J. (1977). Note sur la date et le sens de l’apparition du mot responsabilité. Archives de philosophie du droit, T 22, Sirey, 59-63.
Javan, M. (1947). Fundamentals of Law. Vol. 1, Tehran: Rangin Printing Company. [In Persian]
Katouzian, N. (1997). General Prrinciples of Contracts. Vol. 5, Tehran: Enteshar Company. [In Persian]
Katouzian, N. (2002). Liability arising from production defects. Tehran: Tehran University Press. [In Persian]
Khansari, M. (1997). Maniya al-Talib fi Hashiyyah al-Makasab (research reports of Mohammad Hossein al-Naini). Vol. 1, Qom: Moaseseh neshar eslami jameeh modresin.
Kazemi, M. (2025). The impact of technological growth on civil liability (Tort Law) (Transformation from the debt of responsibility to the demand for compensation). Journal of Research and Developpment in private Law, (3), 310-343. Doi: 10.22034/jpl.2025.721256 [In Persian]
Lamber-Faivre, Y. (1987). L’évolution de la responsabilité civile d’une dette de responsabilité à une créance d’indemnisation. RTD civil, 1-19.
Lapoyade-Deschamps, C. (1997). Dommages- intérêts. Répertoire Dalloz.
Le Gallou, C. (2007). La notion d’indemnité en droit privé. Paris: L.G.D.J.
Le Tourneau, Ph. (1998). Des métamorphoses contemporaine et subreptice de la faute subjective. sixième journée René Savatier : Les métamorphoses de la responsabilité, Paris: PUF.
Le Tourneau, Ph. Cadiet, L. (2002). Droit de la responsabilité civile et des contrats. Paris: Dalloz.
Loth, M. (2015). Corrective and distributive justice in tort law. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law. 22(6), 788-811. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1023263X1502200602 (Accessed:2 January 2026)
Malaurie, Ph. Aynès, L. (2020). Introduction au droit. 8 éd, Paris: L.G.D.J.
Malaurie, Ph. Aynès, L. Stoffel-Munck, Ph. (2020). Droit des obligations. 11 éd, Paris: L.G.D.J.
Margeat, H. (1992). Déclin, rémanence ou renaissance de la responsabilité civile. Revue Risques, (10), 25-40.
Millet, F. (2001). La notion de risque et ses fonctions en droit privé. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires de Clermont-Ferrand.
Peyrelavade, J. (1996). Assurance. Encyclopédie universalis France, (3).
Molodi, M., Haji Azizi, B., & Gholami, N. (2018). Economic Basis of Loss Distribution in Tort Law. Journal of Legal Studies, (29), 227-258. Doi: 10.22099/jls.2018.26426.2533 [In Persian]
Rahimi, H., & Torof, F. (2019). Features of Justice in the First Article of the Iranian Civil Liability Act in Comparison with of John Rawls's Distributive Justice Theory. Private Law Research, (25), 59-88. Doi: 10.22054/jplr.2018.22442.1577. [In Persian]
Renoux, Th., & Roux, A. (1993). Responsabilité de l'Etat et droit des victimes d'actes de terrorisme, AJDA, 75-81.
Responsabilité et socialisation des risques, (2005). Rapport du conseil d’Etat français.
Safai, S.H., & Rahimi, H. (2022). Civil Liability (Extra-contractual Obligations). 4 Ed, Tehran: Samt.
Sériaux, A. (1997). Le droit, une introduction. Ellipses.
Sériaux, A. (2017). Théorie de la justice et droit de la responsabilité civile, Cahiers de méthodologie juridique, 1857-1867. https://cmj.univ-amu.fr/theorie-de-la-justice-et-droit-de-la-responsabilite-civile/ (Accessed:2 January 2026)
Sousse, M. (1994). La notion de réparation de dommages en droit administratif français. Paris: L.G.D.J.
Villey, M. (2001). Philosophie de droit. Paris: Dalloz.     
Viney, G. (2007). Introduction à la responsabilité. Traité de droit civil, sous la direction de J. Ghestin, Paris, 3 éd, Paris: L.G.D.J. 
Viney, G. (1999). L’avenir des régimes d’indemnisation indépendants de la responsabilité civile. in Le juge entre deux millénaires: mélanges offerts à Pierre Drai, Paris: Dalloz.
Viney, G. (1965). Le déclin de la responsabilité individuelle, Paris: L.G.D.J. 
Yoshihisa, N. (2022). Structuring of Tort Liability from Corrective and Distributive Justice, Archives de philosophie du droit, T 63, Sirey, 235-256. https://droit.cairn.info/revue-archives-de-philosophie-du-droit-2021-1-page-235?lang=en#s1n3 .(Accessed:2 January 2026)
Law Quarterly
Volume 56, Issue 2
Summer 2026
Pages 277-308