A CRITICAL STUDY OF TORT LAW OBSTACLES OF LIABILITY OF LEGISLATURE’S SOVEREIGNTY

The structure of civil liability law places great challenges on the civil accountability. The hard challenges of inertia, irreconcilability, indifference in the legislature's behavior come about from civil liability law. Therefore, they have said that they will not be able to answer the questions themselves in order to prevent civilian accountability and not to be happy about libelous litigation But civil justice calls for sovereign sovereignty to respond to civil responsibility in their pernicious behavior. The Liability organization and its triumphant principles (the "principle of civil accountability" and "the principle of accountability of all the stinging heads"), with all its glorious structure to the basic tools of the "blame" and "inadmissibility", put the rulers at the foot of the trial to equalize the "balance" Civil society "between lost and the Legislators trespassing. The theme of professional misconduct by lawmakers is another. In France, liability emerged from state regulation by the Blanco (1873) and Couitéas (1923) government council, which led to the accountability vote for L'Fleurette (1938) of the law-abiding law of the Parliament; In Iran, for ordinary law-makers, defying the general (religious) and the fundamental law is "violation of the previous mandate", and it is a civil shame (Article 72). In the " unfair legislature " and "abandoning the pernicious perceptions of the ninth", the harmful regulations of the state based on the fundamental right to appeal, and Article 173 and paragraph 1 of Article 10 and its note (the principle of preventing loss) and Article 11 (the annulment of decisions of public authorities and restitution to the status The former) from the Act of administrative justice, "guilty civil liability" in organized harmful decisions: "The principle of guilty civil liability blames the boundaries of the principle of" civil immunity "of the ruling rulers."