مسئولیت عینی

 The issue of doping in sports continues to provoke debate and significantly influences the spirit of fair play and equity in athletic competitions. While remarkable advancements have been made in the anti-doping framework through the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code, the principle of strict liability stands as a key legal foundation of the anti-doping system.The relentless pursuit of victory among professional athletes often drives some to breach anti-doping regulations. The utilization of performance-enhancing substances and methods has stirred controversy throughout the history of sports, with its origins tracing back to ancient times. Modern advancements have only intensified the complexity of doping practices, as exemplified by the emergence of blood and gene doping techniques. In response to these growing concerns, the international sports law community has collaborated to create a comprehensive global system to address the issue.Athletes who resort to these prohibited substances and methods not only jeopardize their physical and mental well-being, but also gain an unfair edge over their competitors. This, in turn, threatens the integrity of sports and the core values they represent, including ethical conduct, fair play, honesty, well-being, excellence, education, camaraderie, and teamwork.Given these concerns, it is crucial for anti-doping organizations, sports governing bodies, and national and international federations to enforce stringent regulations aimed at deterring the use of such substances and methods by athletes. Adopting a stance of strict liability in doping cases is vital for ensuring that anti-doping agencies and arbitration institutions can maintain order, uphold justice, and preserve the spirit of fair competition. The realm of doping in sports encompasses two main categories of athletes who test positive for banned substances: those who intentionally use performance-enhancing drugs to gain a competitive edge, and those who inadvertently ingest such substances due to negligence or carelessness. Despite these distinctions, the principle of strict liability within anti-doping regulations treats both categories equally in establishing a violation, leading to a polarized debate among experts and stakeholders.Proponents of strict liability argue that its implementation is essential to maintain order and efficacy within the anti-doping system. In contrast, opponents contend that athletes who are not at fault should not face punishment, as strict liability inherently conflicts with the tenets of natural justice. Notably, athletes who can demonstrate a lack of fault or negligence in their doping violation may be eligible for a reduced suspension period, theoretically addressing some criticisms of the principle.Despite its imperfections, the legal framework of the anti-doping system must, much like other legal systems, contend with inherent challenges. The value of strict liability lies not in its implementation alone, but in its capacity to fill a void that would otherwise exist, given the near impossibility of proving an athlete's intentional doping in its absence. Consequently, the principle of strict liability remains a necessary and inevitable component of the anti-doping system.An analysis of the Court of Arbitration for Sport's jurisprudence and relevant case studies indicates that the principle of strict liability has become firmly established in disciplinary cases, particularly those concerning anti-doping violations. This article employs the descriptive-analytical method to explore the concept of doping, general notion of strict liability, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport in its preliminary discussions. The Article delves into strict liability's application to athletes, the intricacies of establishing violations, and the potential for reduced sanctions under exceptional circumstances. Notably, this research addresses a gap in Persian-language literature, as no prior source has specifically examined strict liability concerning doping by athletes.

According to the general rule of liability, a person is responsible for their own acts or acts committed under their instruction. Therefore, liability arising from the act of another person has exceptions and is contrary to the general rule. Another form of liability arising from the act of another person is known in common law as "vicarious liability," which is interpreted as proxy liability. In the civil liability sources of common law, the discussion of employer's liability for the actions of their employees has been addressed under the same title. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method, examines the latest theories on the foundations and conditions of this liability in Iran’s and England’s laws. According to Article 12 of the Iranian Civil Liability Law, employer's liability is based on the theory of fault and its specificity lies only in the fact that it arises from the act of another person. In contrast, in English law, this liability is considered distinctive from two perspectives: firstly, it is contrary to the principle of personal liability, and secondly, it falls within the framework of the theory of strict liability and is solely based on the element of harm.

It appears according to writings in common law and domestic law that it’s impossible to consider a single base for civil liability and consequently bailee’s liability in all cases. Liability based on negligence, strict liability and objective liability are the concepts that have been explained when discussing the basis of liability. However, it seems that strict liability cannot be an independent base for civil liability and consequently bailee’s liability. Th liability based on negligence is rooted in the invocation of damages to the behavior of damage creator and in fact, the negligence is not the principle. On the contrary, the objective liability can have an independent basis for liability. Of course, mentioning these concepts, necessarily does not imply their existence in both said legal systems, but there is notable evidence that support the existence of a thought-provoking affiliation in the foundation of liability in these two systems. Practically, it can be said that, in terms of the efficiency in suppressing the bailee’s breach of duty, considering the objective liability and in most strict state, domestic law has accepted absolute liability and is more successful than common law.

In the past, there were different views and ideas about civil liability and compensation, therefore there might have been some negligence towards the rights of injured parties; that or the compensation might have been left unsaid, or with justifying the incentives of causing injury the injured person would be included in beneficiaries of public interests. Facing new ideas, nowadays these views have faded and general belief is that no harm should be left uncompensated In this regardthere are various theories about the basis of the responsibility of the owner of vehicle. Two of them are more prominent: presumption of fault and strict liability. In car accidents, industrial and social developments have raised the acceptance of strict liability. In addition, Islamic Jurisprudence has chosen a different basis, which is strict liability rather than fault assumption more than a thousand years ago. Having in mind the forth principle of Iran' s constitution which states all laws and regulations must be based on Islamic Law criteria; here the absolute liability theory is preferred.

Advent of industrial revolution in 19th century aside from economic evolutions of developed societies led to change or modification of institutions and concepts of criminal law. Negative response to this question whether in new crimes arising from mechanical and industrial life, should we emphasize on Mens Rea or not, were one of those fundamental changes. Crimination of acts without qualification of Mens Rea whether intentionally or negligently and automatic qualification of Mens Rea without prosecutor duty to prove mental element of crime, was conclusion of discussions. Like civil liability, proving damages, commission of harmful act by accused and establishing causality between these elements sufficed trial and punishment of perpetrator. These crimes called” Strict Liability crimes” or “crimes based on criminal strict liability”. Final result of this paper is that this approach with little scientific support has not been defined by legislator in Iran law.