CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

SEYEDEH KIANA BANIKAMALI similarity to the absolute liability of the operator outlined in the Vienna Convention, where compensation is mandated regardless of negligence. 28 Contradiction with the Rule of Causation: This theory contradicts the Rule of Causation ( Tasbib ), whereby the person providing the initial opportunity for harm essentially commits an act that, if not undertaken, would prevent the damage from occurring. In Causation, the harm is attributed indirectly to another individual. So, in cases of indirect destruction, the attribution of responsibility to the perpetrator is contingent upon demonstrating their commission of a fault or aggressive action. Consequently, without substantiating the fault or aggression of the party causing harm, no liability is imposed upon them. 29 Contrary to what was stated in the Rule of Loss, fault is one of the elements of responsibility, and damages resulting from objects can only be claimed if the fault of the owner or possessor is proven. 30 Therefore, theories such as the Rule of Causation cannot serve as the basis for civil liability arising from nuclear damages, as proving fault in such incidents contradicts the Vienna Convention and the absolute liability of the operator. The Theory of Attribution of Harm: According to the Theory of Attribution of Harm, responsibility for compensating damage lies with the individual engaging in an action attributed to causing harm. The key is attributing the harm to the actor, which is based on custom. Therefore, determining responsibility for harm involves identifying whose act or omission is attributed to causing it, according to customary practices. 31 It can be concluded that the application of strict liability, or liability without fault, has also been recognised in Iranian law under different doctrines, such as the Theory of Attribution. 32 The Theory of Risk: Lastly, the Theory of Risk ( Khatar ) states that the owner’s responsibility isn’t based on the fault of the damaging party but on the risk associated with the activity or object controlled by the active agent. This means liability extends beyond the individual causing damage, including objects under their control and associated individuals like workers. In today’s industrial world, this theory is relevant as it simplifies compensation lawsuits by removing the need to prove negligence, thereby benefiting the injured party. 33 Among all, this theory corresponds more with the exclusive liability of the operator in the Vienna Convention. 4. Challenges, Prospects, and Amendment for Iran’s Legal Framework Many nuclear-capable countries nowadays address and intervene in the specific regime of nuclear damage compensation within their legal systems. This involvement often includes enacting particular laws and joining conventions, with many countries opting for both 28 MOHAMMAD HOSSEINY TARGHI M. and RASHIDI H., ‘Study on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage in the Rules and Internal Laws Considering the Accession of Country to the 1963 Vienna Convention’ [2018] J. of Nucl Sci. and Tech . 103. 29 MAASARI BONAB, A. (n 28) 57. 30 NIAZI A. and others, ‘Investigating the Civil Liability Principles Caused by Nuclear Damage in Respect of the

Consequences of Objects’ (2018) Special Issue J. of Nucl Sci. and Tech . 43–53. 31 MOHAMMAD HOSSEINY TARGHI, M. and RASHIDI, H. (n 29) 106.

32 KHAZAEI, S. and KHALAJ, Y. ‘The Strict Liability for Damages Resulting from Inventions in Iranian and Common Laws’ (2021) 18 Private Law accessed 8 June 2024. 33 MOHAMMAD HOSSEINY TARGHI, M. and RASHIDI, H. (n 29) 106.

274