Jurisprudential Foundations of the State's Criminal and Civil Liability Towards Victims of Terrorist Acts

Abstract

Due to the complexities and conflicting interests of countries, terrorism has not yet been defined comprehensively and accepted by all nations and states. However, terrorists leave victims behind every day by committing their terrorist acts and cause human and financial losses to people. In response to such actions, sometimes governments and national and international institutions provide financial assistance according to their ability and purpose to compensate for such losses; often these types of actions cannot adequately compensate for the losses incurred. This is achieved when the assistance is regulated and is considered a religious and legal obligation of governments, especially Islamic governments. To achieve such an objective, its evidence and foundations must be explained. The present study has been limited to jurisprudential foundations to prove responsibility. The question is whether there are jurisprudential foundations that prove a duty for the government towards the victims of terrorist acts so that the victims can make claims in light of it? In addition to producing the necessary literature in this area, the answer to this question will enable victims of terrorist incidents to claim damages. The present study seeks to answer the above question using a descriptive-analytical method and library tools. The findings of the study indicate that by adhering to and analyzing the jurisprudential rule "The breath of a certain matter shall not be invalidated", similar rules, the practice of the Islamic government, especially during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and the statements of jurists, such liability can be proven. According to some views, "breath" in the jurisprudential rule "The breath of a certain matter shall not be invalidated" can be generalized to other than the soul, which in this way proves the civil liability of the state.