Legal Studies in Digital Age In Press 2027 07 01 Legal Challenges in Compensating Moral Damages Arising from Administrative Decisions: A Comparative Study of the Legal Systems of Iran and Iraq Legal Challenges in Compensating Moral Damages Arising from Administrative Decisions: A Comparative Study of the Legal Systems of Iran and Iraq 1 16 EN Journal Article 2026 07 13 <p>The expansion of governmental intervention in social, economic, professional, and regulatory affairs has increased the possibility that administrative decisions may cause not only material losses but also moral and non-pecuniary harms, including injury to dignity, reputation, privacy, psychological well-being, and professional standing. This study examines the legal challenges associated with compensating moral damages arising from administrative decisions in the legal systems of Iran and Iraq. Using a descriptive-analytical and comparative method, the study analyzes the conceptual foundations of moral damage, the legal bases of state liability, the relationship between unlawfulness and compensation, the requirements of fault and causation, evidentiary difficulties, judicial competence, assessment of damages, and available forms of reparation. The findings indicate that both legal systems possess doctrinal foundations for recognizing moral damage and governmental liability, yet important uncertainties remain regarding the threshold of compensability, attribution of institutional fault, proof of non-economic injury, and the quantification of compensation. In both jurisdictions, annulment of an unlawful administrative decision does not necessarily provide full reparation because reputational, psychological, and professional consequences may continue after the decision loses legal effect. The comparative analysis further shows that Iranian law increasingly approaches the issue through administrative accountability and effective judicial remedies, while Iraqi law relies more heavily on general principles of civil liability and obligations. The study concludes that both systems would benefit from clearer statutory or judicial standards concerning serious non-pecuniary harm, causation, proof, and assessment of compensation. It also emphasizes the need to expand non-monetary remedies, including correction of administrative records, reinstatement, formal acknowledgment of error, and restoration of professional status. A more coherent and integrated framework would enhance governmental accountability, strengthen protection of individual rights, and improve the effectiveness of administrative justice.</p> https://jlsda.com/index.php/lsda/article/download/541/461