Almajed, Abdullah (2024) A Legal Comparative Critique of the Saudi Arabian Board of Grievances System in its Current Context with Insights from the Experience in England and Wales. Doctoral thesis, University of Essex.
Almajed, Abdullah (2024) A Legal Comparative Critique of the Saudi Arabian Board of Grievances System in its Current Context with Insights from the Experience in England and Wales. Doctoral thesis, University of Essex.
Almajed, Abdullah (2024) A Legal Comparative Critique of the Saudi Arabian Board of Grievances System in its Current Context with Insights from the Experience in England and Wales. Doctoral thesis, University of Essex.
Abstract
This thesis concerns analysing and critically assessing the role of Saudi Arabian administrative justice system from a comparative perspective by focusing on the Board of Grievances, the Saudi Arabian independent Administrative judicial body. The study will attempt to shed light and reveal some of the uncertainty surrounding the current status of the BoG and its decisions, in four specific areas that the thesis believes from the preliminary results it has some flaws and weaknesses and may need minor improvements, namely: the ground of Challenges, the issue of Time limits, The Issue of Standing, and the Issue of Alternative Remedies; by present the most important insights, observations, and reflections resulting from its comparison with the English and Welsh system. The first central argument of the thesis is that codifying the grounds of challenge in the Saudi system has restricted the administrative courts' authority to review administrative actions, as they are only able to intervene if there is a provision in the applicable laws or regulations that explicitly indicates the executive decision is unlawful. The second central argument is that the time limits constraints in Saudi Arabian law are complex as a result of the ten-year legal time limits periods; as the study claims that these periods are excessively lengthy, hindering the development of future plans that can be put into action. The third central argument is that barring individuals from accessing BoG courts due to insufficient standing raises significant concerns that are pertinent to both the individual and society. The fourth central argument is that the mandatory grievance procedure, which requires individuals to approach the administrative authority that made the decision before initiating a JR proceeding, has several criticisms. The study claims that this requirement is problematic, as it lacks a basis in Islamic law
Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
---|---|
Uncontrolled Keywords: | Saudi Arabian Board of Grievances |
Subjects: | K Law > KD England and Wales |
Divisions: | Faculty of Arts and Humanities > Essex Law School |
Depositing User: | Abdullah Almajed |
Date Deposited: | 08 Mar 2024 10:54 |
Last Modified: | 08 Apr 2024 08:35 |
URI: | http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/37935 |
Available files
Filename: Abdullah Almajed PDF.pdf