KMAN Publication Incorporation Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics 3060-5687 5 Serial Number 17 2026 04 01 The Relationship Between Civil and Criminal Liability in Iranian and English Law The Relationship Between Civil and Criminal Liability in Iranian and English Law 1 16 10.61838/kman.isslp.403 EN Journal Article 2025 06 05 <p>This study examines the intricate relationship between civil and criminal liability within the legal frameworks of Iran and England, highlighting their conceptual, procedural, and philosophical foundations. Employing a descriptive–analytical and comparative approach, the research explores how each system defines, distinguishes, and occasionally overlaps these two forms of responsibility. In Iranian law, shaped by Islamic jurisprudence and the Civil Code, civil and criminal liabilities are integrated within a unified moral-legal system, where a single wrongful act may entail both punishment and compensation. This integration reflects the Islamic conception of justice as the restoration of both divine and human rights through moral accountability and material restitution. In contrast, English law, rooted in common law traditions, establishes a clear institutional and procedural separation between public and private wrongs. Criminal law addresses offenses against public order through punishment, while tort law provides remedies for private injuries through compensation. Despite this distinction, English law allows limited convergence through compensation orders and restitution mechanisms. The comparative analysis reveals that while the Iranian system emphasizes moral and theological coherence, the English system prioritizes procedural fairness and evidentiary clarity. Yet both systems are increasingly converging under modern reforms emphasizing restorative justice, victim compensation, and proportionality. The study concludes that justice in both traditions requires a synthesis of retributive and restorative ideals, ensuring that legal responsibility encompasses both punishment for wrongdoing and the repair of harm. By examining these parallel yet intersecting approaches, the paper contributes to a deeper understanding of how moral, religious, and pragmatic principles shape the evolution of legal accountability across diverse legal cultures.</p> https://www.journalisslp.com/index.php/isslp/article/download/403/747