The Administrative Judiciary: Balancing Public and Private Interests in Administrative Police (A Comparative Study of Iraqi, French, and Egyptian Law)

Abstract

Administrative police measures constitute a pivotal tool employed by public authorities to uphold public order. Nonetheless, the exercise of such powers may, in practice, encroach upon the rights and legitimate interests of individuals. This potential conflict necessitates the intervention of the administrative judiciary to mediate and ensure an equitable balance between the general interest in preserving order and the protection of private rights. This study seeks to examine the judicial mechanisms through which such a balance is maintained, with particular emphasis on the role of administrative courts in reviewing administrative police decisions under both ordinary legal conditions and exceptional circumstances. Under normal conditions, the judiciary exercises strict scrutiny over the legality of such measures, assessing their compliance with all constituent legal elements. In contrast, during exceptional circumstances—where the executive branch may be vested with expanded powers to address unforeseen risks—the judiciary evaluates the fulfillment of the conditions required for the application of the exceptional circumstances doctrine, as well as the proportionality and suitability of the measures adopted by the administration. Adopting a comparative analytical methodology, this research analyzes the jurisprudence of administrative courts in France, Egypt, and Iraq. Through this comparative lens, the study aims to uncover how different legal systems approach the delicate task of balancing the powers of the administration against the guarantees afforded to individuals, particularly within the framework of administrative police authority. Ultimately, the study underscores the importance of judicial oversight in preventing the misuse of administrative police powers as an arbitrary tool that may infringe upon fundamental rights.