Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
PhD Student in Jurisprudence and Private Law, Shahid Motahari University and Higher School, Tehran, Iran
2
Full Professor and Faculty Member, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3
Associate Professor and Faculty Member, Department of Jurisprudence and Law, Shahid Motahari University and Higher School, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
The phenomenon of dilapidated and abandoned properties, as a “negative external cost” and an example of “waste of national capital,” is considered a serious challenge in Iran by imposing heavy economic, social, and health burdens. This problem, which according to the “broken windows theory” can contribute to the deterioration of urban structures, reveals a deep gap in the legal system: the absence of a coherent institution to identify the “owner’s duty to maintain the property” (real estate alimony). This gap is rooted in the fundamental difference between two paradigms: on the one hand, the “duty-oriented” approach of Imami jurisprudence, which, relying on rules such as “no harm” and “prohibition of wasting property,” considers ownership to be a divine trust and the duty to maintain it to be a positive and a priori duty; On the other hand, the “liability-based” approach of Iranian statutory law, which is influenced by the Roman-German tradition and emphasizes the free will of the owner (Article 30 of the Civil Code), mainly comes into play after the occurrence of damage and through compulsory guarantee. This article analyzes this paradigmatic gap using a descriptive-analytical method and by examining laws, doctrine, and judicial practice. The findings show that the existing legal mechanisms, although they have sporadically proposed preventive duties in laws such as the Municipal Law and the Land Use Preservation Law, are generally reactive in nature. The judicial system has also moved towards identifying an “implied duty of care” by broadly interpreting concepts such as “fault” and “causation” in the unification decisions of the Supreme Court, in an attempt to fill this gap, but these approaches are not sufficient to create a coherent procedure. As a result, this research argues that legislative reforms are necessary to transition to the concept of “responsible ownership.” Therefore, specific solutions are proposed, including the development of an independent chapter on "Ownership Obligations" in the Civil Code with the aim of defining a "primary obligation" and providing for "preventive litigation," as well as strengthening and expanding the powers of public institutions such as municipalities from merely "removing danger" to "removing visual and health anomalies."
Keywords
Subjects