Analysis and Explanation of Legal Liabilities Arising from Climate Change-Related Damage

Abstract

Climate change, by increasing the severity or likelihood of certain hazards, including floods, droughts, coastal erosion, and water stress, challenges traditional assumptions in private law concerning the stability of property, the foreseeability of harm, and the direct attribution of damage. This article examines the relationship among climate-related hazards, property security, and civil liability within the framework of Iranian law. The study employs a descriptive–analytical method and a library-based research approach. The findings indicate that the impacts of climate change are not limited to the physical destruction of property; reductions in the economic value of property, restrictions on the ability to use and benefit from property, changes in riverbeds and coastlines, forced population displacement, and government-imposed conservation restrictions may also give rise to property disputes. In the field of civil liability, the multiplicity of human and natural contributing factors, the temporal gap between pollutant emissions and the occurrence of damage, and the probabilistic nature of attribution science make it difficult to establish a causal relationship. Nevertheless, evidentiary difficulties should not result in the automatic immunity of actors who create or contribute to risk or in the disregard of the losses suffered by affected parties. The article proposes that existing legal rules be supplemented by transparent risk-assessment criteria, access to scientific data, appropriate judicial presumptions, allocation of liability based on each party’s effective contribution to the creation of risk, and collective compensation mechanisms. At the same time, restrictions on property rights for environmental reasons should be lawful, necessary, proportionate, and accompanied by access to effective remedies. The article concludes that an appropriate legal response lies neither in the unrestricted absolutization of property rights nor in the unlimited prioritization of the public interest; rather, it requires a reasoned balance among legal certainty, ecological protection, compensation for damage, and intergenerational justice.