An Interdisciplinary Approach to Civil Liability of Government in Public Policy

In the various legal systems of the world, governments often base the civil liability on the theory of fault; i.e. governments cannot be adjudged to pay indemnity unless they commit a violation. But the changes and evolution of the legal theories in some countries, under some circumstances, have been trending toward recognizing the liability of the governments even without committing any fault. However, compensation for damages in the absence of government fault is generally adjudged in specific objective cases, and usually damages to the public as a result of public policy are not compensated. One reason is that even if public policies are enforced with many shortcomings and deficiencies, the losers cannot claim damages because either these policies are sovereign or they include some governmental measures and legal actions. Accordingly, some of the greatest oppressions in public policy may occur, while these oppressions are not defined and dealt with in the context of civil liability of the governments. As the legal and managerial theories evolve, it seems that the scope of government responsibility for public policy can also be traced and made possible for policymakers to be held accountable. In this article, after a brief review of the theoretical literature of the research subject, using an analogy-based reasoning approach, an innovative model for recognition of oppression has been proposed and the necessity of combating oppression in the judicial system of the country has been emphasized.