The standard of reasonableness as one of the standards of judicial oversight in the field

Abstract

          Abstract: The reasonableness standard has emerged as one of the most dynamic and progressive judicial tools for regulating administrative discretion and protecting individual rights. It constitutes a fundamental legal principle developed within the framework of administrative judicial review to ensure that administrative decisions align with logic, rationality, and the expectations of a prudent public official acting under similar circumstances. Given the wide scope of discretionary authority often granted to administrative bodies to address changing societal conditions and emergencies, there is a growing need for an effective judicial mechanism capable of restraining administrative overreach without hindering the executive’s flexibility. The reasonableness test serves precisely this role by allowing courts to examine not only the legality of administrative decisions but also their substantive fairness, appropriateness, and proportionality.

   This study explores the reasonableness standard as a core element of judicial review over discretionary administrative acts. Through a comparative and analytical methodology, the research examines five legal systems: the French administrative model, renowned for its independent administrative judiciary; the English system, characterized by a unified judiciary; and the hybrid Arab systems of Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan, which historically derived from the French tradition but have evolved distinctively. The study aims to dissect the legal foundations of the reasonableness test, investigate its application in various courts, and highlight the divergence between these systems in terms of embracing and operationalizing the standard.

   The findings indicate that in France, the reasonableness standard has been gradually shaped through the jurisprudence of the Conseil d’État into a flexible judicial tool for reviewing administrative abuses of discretion. In the English legal tradition, it has developed primarily through the Wednesbury unreasonableness doctrine, which establishes a high threshold for judicial interference and limits review to cases where decisions are so irrational that no reasonable authority would have made them. While the French model favors deeper judicial scrutiny of administrative logic, the English model is marked by restraint and deference to administrative autonomy.

   In the Arab context, the application of the reasonableness standard is uneven. Iraqi administrative courts have made cautious and limited use of it despite legislative provisions that allow such review. Conversely, Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court has robustly integrated the standard into its jurisprudence, deeming reasonableness essential to the legality of administrative decisions. Jordanian courts, influenced by the Egyptian model, have increasingly invoked the standard, yet with a distinctive national approach reflecting local legal and institutional dynamics.

The study underscores that the reasonableness standard differs from the traditional legality principle, which focuses solely on the formal compliance of decisions with law. Reasonableness delves deeper into the substantive justifications, logical coherence, and appropriateness of decisions in relation to the public interest and individual rights. It represents a balanced mechanism that enables judicial oversight without undermining the discretionary space necessary for effective public administration.

   Accordingly, the research recommends that Arab administrative laws be reformed to explicitly incorporate the reasonableness standard and to empower courts to apply it more expansively. Moreover, it calls on legal scholars and practitioners to contribute to defining and refining this standard through doctrinal development and comparative legal analysis, thereby strengthening judicial protection of rights while safeguarding administrative functionality.

© 2023 TUJR, College of Law, Tikrit University