Fault-based civil liability and some fundamental philosophical debates

Some jurists use the criterion of fault as the philosophical basis of civil liability. This article, aims to exploring relationship between this criterion and some epistemological, ethical and ontological debates; Or to be more precise, dependence of using this criterion on some main philosophical debates. It has been argued that Fault-based civil liability (1) at least in some of its versions, implies free will; But not in all its versions; That is, it can be impartial to philosophical disputes over free will, (2) depends on the idea of naturalism about human persons and the idea of nature as a deterministic mechanism, (3) In combination with cognitivism, implies realism; But again, not in all its versions, (4) when the fault is considered non-personal, is not consistent with non-realism but it does not depend on taking sides in naïve-critical realism debate and at last (5) considering fault as non-personal, in itself does not implies cognitivism or non-cognitivism, but in the right and justice paradigm, implies cognitivism.