The ‘Dawla Madaniyya’ and the Reform of the Judiciary in the Arab Spring

Reform of the judiciary, abolition of exceptional courts and strengthening of judicial independence, especially vis-à-vis the executive power, figured prominently in the debates triggered by the so-called Arab spring. But the reforms produced by the debates in the different countries have been highly unequal in outlook and effectiveness.

The attempts in Egypt to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and to end the system of exceptional courts, including an excessive role of military courts, have largely failed, while the attempts in Tunisia to implement the concept of ‘civil state’ also in the judicial sector look more consistent and promising.

One of the most important developments has been the introduction of new, or the strengthening of existing, constitutional review bodies through a better protection of their independence and professional reputation as well as the introduction of new powers.

In particular, the constitutional courts in Tunisia, Morocco and Jordan have been given powers which would allow them for the first time to adjudicate on the constitutionality of statutes and other legal provisions in the context of concrete litigation, thus creating a potential opening for individuals and civil society organizations to litigate their constitutional rights in court.

About the author

Rainer Grote is a Senior Reasearch Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public Comparative Law and Public International Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and Adjunct Professor of Public Law at the University of Göttingen. He studied law at the universities of Bielefeld, Geneva, Göttingen and Edinburgh and holds a PhD from the University of Göttingen and a LL.M. from the University of Edinburgh. He teaches and writes in the fields of constitutional law, comparative law and public international law.