A Comparative Analysis of the Justification of Tortious Acts of the Lawful Superior and the Subordinate (French, Egyptian, Lebanese, Algerian, Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian and Iranian Law)

In respect of justification of tortious acts (faits justicatifs) of the lawful superior and the subordinate, there are specific provisions or regulations and principles of civil liability in various countries. However, in order to justify the tortious act of the lawful superior and the subordinate, there must exist four conditions:“public official”, “competent legal authority”, “legal order” and “compliance with the prudence”. One of the fundamental issues in different legal systems is the test and standard of liability of the official in executing unlawful order. That is, a standard which determines in what cases of the execution of the order, the subordinate would be liable and in what cases the lawful superior. In some countries, for example France, the court will examine whether in the circumstances of the particular official, a reasonable and prudent official would have obeyed the unlawful order or not. In case of obedience in such circumstances, the official would not be responsible. But, in other countries, such as Egypt, Syria and Iraq, the subordinate must generally compensate damages caused to others unless he/she believes the order is unlawful and he/she exercises prudence in executing the order. As to Iranian law, one can say that the test and standard of liability of the official in executing unlawful orders is behavior as a conscientious official with precaution as expected from a reasonable and prudent one. The authors attempt to study the scope and conditions of justification of the tortious act of lawful superior and official in a comparative manner.