Censorship of Necessity Regulations: A Comparative Study (France, Egypt and Syria)

The principle of separation of powers requires that legislation in principle be entrusted to the legislative authority (Parliament). However, the development of the role of the state and the complexity of its activities made the legislative authority unable to assume the power of legislation on its own, which imposed the necessity for the executive authority to share the task of legislation. The necessity of the executive authority assuming the authority to legislate the passage of the state under exceptional circumstances was confirmed, which inevitably imposes the intervention of the executive authority in order to confront the state of necessity that would threaten the entity, independence, and safety of its people and land. But granting the executive authority the power to legislate poses a great danger to the rights and freedoms of individuals, which requires the constitutional legislator to set limitations and restrictions on the power of the executive authority to legislate. The constitutional legislator has actually placed two types of restrictions on the executive authority in its practice of legislation. Such restrictions include objective restrictions that are mainly embodied in the availability of the state of necessity and which is the subject of all constitutional legislation in countries. Another type is formal restrictions that are the subject of disagreement among countries. In order to ensure the adherence of the executive authority to the restrictions set by the legislator, the executive authority, in the course of its legislative regulatory activity, was subjected to censorship by both Parliament and the judiciary. The countries in question varied in adopting this censorship. Here, it must be pointed out that Islamic jurisprudence was precedent of any man-made system in deciding the judicial censorship on the work of the administration. It also adopted in its application the best and most effective models of censorship patterns. What is meant by this is that the administrative justice system is independent of the ordinary judiciary, which is embodied in the judiciary of grievances that have been Later renamed as the Board of Grievances.