A Comparative Study of the Legal Foundations and Principles of the Duty to Rescue Others from the Perspective of Altruism in the Legal Systems of Iran and Egypt

Abstract

The duty to rescue others, as an ethical and legal value, occupies a distinctive position in the legal systems of Iran and Egypt. The purpose of this study is to examine the legal basis of the duty to rescue others from the perspective of altruism and to analyze its ethical, jurisprudential, and human-rights foundations in these two legal systems. The research was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method through note-taking from library sources, legal documents, and the laws of Iran and Egypt. It first elucidated the concepts of altruism and the duty to rescue and then, through a comparative analysis of the relevant laws, examined its instances and constituent elements. The main research question is: What is the legal basis of the duty to rescue others from the perspective of altruism in the legal systems of Iran and Egypt, and on what foundations is it based? The principal hypothesis holds that this duty is founded on ethical, jurisprudential, and human-rights principles, with particular emphasis on the protection of human life; in Iran, it derives from the principles of Imami Shiʿi jurisprudence, whereas in Egypt, it derives from Hanafi jurisprudence and civil law. The findings showed that, in Iran, the principles of “no harm” (lā ḍarar) and “causation” (tasbīb) (Article 1 of the Civil Liability Act and Article 295 of the Islamic Penal Code), together with Article 8 of the Constitution, promote rescue, particularly in emergency situations. In Egypt, Article 163 of the Civil Code and the principle of “social solidarity” (takāful ijtimāʿī) in Hanafi jurisprudence reinforce this duty within the framework of fault-based liability, while Article 78 of the Constitution encourages social participation. Both legal systems, drawing on the right to life (Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), promote altruism as a motivation for voluntary assistance in natural disasters or public emergencies; however, direct legal compulsion remains limited. Jurisprudential differences, such as Iran’s emphasis on causation and Egypt’s emphasis on fault, may produce different outcomes in legal claims; nevertheless, legal protection for rescuers (Article 11 in Iran and Article 165 in Egypt) and the recognition of necessity establish a common framework. It is recommended that educational programs and international cooperation be expanded to strengthen altruism and enhance alignment with international standards.