Abstract

Theory of Sovereign Acts is of a judicial origin. It was created by the French Council of State to face political circumstances experienced by France in the early part of the last century. However, this Theory is still operative to date though justifications of its survival vanished.

This theory has been sternly criticized by most of jurists due to its violation of the Principle of Legality and the democratic principles. However, it is still effective under laws and judiciary refuses to have control over it.

Given the importance of this theory and its seriousness, this study aims to clarify the concept and origin of acts of sovereignty and the criteria used to distinguish it from other acts carried out by the government. This study also aims to show the position of jurisprudence, legislation and the judiciary on the acts of sovereignty that are immune from judicial control.

In spite of the democratic progress and the individuals’ increased awareness of their rights, this study concludes that the laws still provide for these acts and make them immune from the judicial control.

However, the judiciary has started to to restrict the scope of acts of sovereignty, and to adopt the theory of acts detachable from acts of sovereignty, where it has started to control acts of sovereignty and to approve compensation for some of these acts.

This study concludes that the Theory of Sovereign Acts was created by judiciary to face certain conditions and causes that do not exist anymore. Hence, the provisions protecting acts of sovereignty from the judicial control must be repealed for violation of the principles of legality, justice and democracy.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.