Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
Judicial activism in the Egyptian state council
According to the democratic principles of the separation of powers and judicial independence, the judiciary has to apply the law and only the law to the facts before it. However, this principle is not actually applied in many countries where we witness intervention in judicial judgments. While judge...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Published: |
AUC Knowledge Fountain
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | According to the democratic principles of the separation of powers and judicial independence, the judiciary has to apply the law and only the law to the facts before it. However, this principle is not actually applied in many countries where we witness intervention in judicial judgments. While judges adjudicate cases before them and try to find legal solutions under the application of law, they may also rely, in some cases, on both the letter of the law and the overarching activism directives behind it at the same time. Accordingly, a judge legislates according to his own particular interpretation of a certain legal provision in a manner that may broaden or narrow its scope of application in order to achieve justice from his personal point of view. This process of making law is "the judicial activism of judges." Such intervention may take place in human rights cases where judges interpret the notions, conceptions, definitions, and limitations of freedoms and liberties according to their ideological basis; consequently, judicial activism differs from one judge to another. This study highlights the existence of judicial activism through reviewing several actual cases from the Egyptian State Council. The massive conflicts in State Council jurisprudence can be understood in light of judges' distinct education, culture, persuasions, experience, environment, and way of thinking. This is the rational explanation that may clarify the significant mental differentiations among judges to comprehend certain subjects, despite the fact that such subjects are governed by specific and fixed legal provisions. |
|---|