What question did this study set out to answer?

The research aims to explore how administrative courts in Egypt and Jordan manage evidentiary challenges amid a lack of codified procedures. It investigates the balance between state power and judicial discretion in administrative evidence.

May 3, 2026Open Access

Administrative evidence without codification: judicial discretion and procedural balance in Egypt and Jordan

Key Points

The research aims to explore how administrative courts in Egypt and Jordan manage evidentiary challenges amid a lack of codified procedures. It investigates the balance between state power and judicial discretion in administrative evidence.
Employs a systematic doctrinal-comparative methodology
Analyzes constitutional provisions, legislation, and judicial decisions
References the French administrative model to draw insights.
Judicial discretion emerges as a key mechanism for procedural governance in the absence of codified procedures.
Findings indicate that administrative courts utilize burden-shifting and disclosure presumptions to enhance evidentiary fairness.
The concept of 'corrective evidentiary justice' is introduced, reflecting a need for substantive fairness in administrative processes.

Abstract

Administrative evidence constitutes a critical yet under-theorized domain where the rule of law meets the realities of state power. Despite growing comparative scholarship on administrative procedure, the evidentiary dimension of administrative adjudication in Arab legal systems remains insufficiently theorized, particularly in contexts lacking codified procedural frameworks. This study examines how administrative courts in Egypt and Jordan address evidentiary challenges in the absence of comprehensive procedural codification, a structural gap that elevates judicial discretion into a central mechanism of procedural governance. Employing a systematic doctrinal-comparative methodology, the research analyzes constitutional provisions, legislation, judicial decisions, and scholarly commentary, with reference to the French administrative model. It focuses on four key evidentiary dimensions: burden of proof, access to administrative files, judicial discretion, and digital evidence. The findings reveal a fundamental tension: while administrative evidence remains conceptually grounded in general evidentiary theory, its application is reshaped by structural inequality between citizen and state. Courts respond through burden-shifting, disclosure presumptions, and active judicial intervention. These developments support the reconceptualization of administrative evidence as “corrective evidentiary justice,” were evidentiary rules function as instruments of substantive fairness within broader frameworks of procedural justice and judicial governance. The study contributes by situating evidentiary practice within broader debates on procedural justice and judicial intervention; demonstrating the dual role of judicial discretion, and offering comparative insights for reform.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper