نقد ادله مخالف ضمان در اقدامات زيان‌ بار كاركنان دولت

Criticizing the evidence opposed to guarantee in harmful measures of a state`s personnel

ثبوت ضمان در زيان‌هايي كه دستگاه‌ها و كاركنان آن بر اشخاص وارد مي‌كنند، مستند به قواعد عمومي و ادله خاص چندي است، اما اين ادله در منابع فقهي به صورت خاص مورد و بررسي قرار نگرفته‌اند؛ درحالي‌كه اين امر را بايد اصل و قاعده كلي حاكم بر مناسبات ميان دولت و مردم شمرد و بر پايه آن، دولت و كارگزارانش را از جايگاه فرمانروايي مطلق خارج ساخت و به فرمانروايي پاسخگو مبدل كرد. افزون بر اصل ثبوت ضمان، چنان‌كه در برخي قوانين اساسي و عادي كشورها از جمله جمهوري اسلامي ايران نيز آمده و ما در پژوهشي گسترده نشان داده‌ايم، دولت مسئوليت اقدامات زيان‌بار كاركنان خود را بر عهده دارد. اما در اين موضوع، افزون بر لزوم بررسي قواعد مسقط ضمان و برخي ملاحظات كلي مانند سازگاري و عدم سازگاري ثبوت ضمان با جايگاه دولت و اصل حاكميت، پاره‌اي موارد خاص هست كه ممكن است دليل بر عدم ضمان در برابر چنين زيان‌هايي گرفته شود. در اصل پژوهش نشان داده شده كه آن قواعد و ملاحظات كلي، مانع ثبوت ضمان يا مسئوليت دولت نيستند. آنچه در اين مقاله مي‌آيد، بررسي و نقد سه دليل خاص است كه ممكن است معارض ادله ثبوت ضمان و در نتيجه مايه عدم ضمان و مسئوليت دولت شمرده شود؛ ادله‌اي كه در جايي از منابع فقهي موجود از منظر بررسي ما به آنها نگريسته نشده است.

The Proof of the liability on losses that the organizations and their personnel inflect on the individuals, is based on some general and specific rules, but this evidence was not specifically considered in the jurisprudential sources, while this subject should be regarded as a general principle and rule governing on the relationship between the state and the people, and hence, it dismissed the state and its personnel from its absolute sovereignty stance and changed it as a responsible sovereign. In addition to the principle of proving the liability, as it is asserted by the constitutions and laws of the countries including Islamic Republic of Iran that we have shown it in a comprehensive research, the state is undertaking the personnel`s responsibility of the harmful measures. But besides, in this issue, the necessity of studying the rules of negating the guarantee and some general considerations such as compatibility and incompatibility of proving the guaranty with the government`s stand and the principle of the sovereignty, there are some special cases that they may be regarded as the evidence of lack of guarantee against these such losses. This research has shown that those general rules and considerations do not stop proving the guaranty and liability of the state. What is asserted in this article, is reviewing and considering three specific evidence which can be regarded as opposed to the evidence of proving the liability and consequently, as a cause of the lack of the government`s guarantee and its liability; according to our approach, this evidence is not considered in the existing jurisprudential sources at all.