The Causal Mandate for Administrative Decisions and its Effect on Oversight of Governmental Performance

Abstract

Abstract:

In the realm of governance, administrative decisions, often facilitated by specific departments, are a prevalent method to govern various aspects of administrative life. Although many states continue to adhere to the prevailing principle of allowing the discretionary imposition of administrative decisions – a manifestation of the concept of administrative secrecy – there is a noticeable shift towards administrative transparency in contemporary states. This department, tasked with overseeing the general welfare of the public, is cognizant of the need to balance individual rights and freedoms. Current jurisprudence trends and administrative judiciary practices advocate for the permissible imposition of administrative decisions, with scant attention given to the compulsory principles governing such decisions, despite their significant impact on individuals' rights and freedoms. To preserve the integrity of administrative decisions and to prevent potential abuse of power, it is crucial that these decisions are constructed upon a solid foundation of five key elements: rationale, jurisdiction, structure, location, and objective. Implementing these elements will act as a safeguard against the unwarranted infringement of individuals' rights and freedoms under the guise of public interest.

Given the importance of rationalizing administrative decisions and the disparity in the application within Saudi systems, ranging between systems and regulations that mandate causation, and others that have remained on the commonly utilized principle, which is the permissibility of causation. This research has been prepared utilizing a comparative analytical approach, juxtaposing the Saudi regime with French law and scrutinizing the stances adopted by the judiciary concerning the permissible and compulsory imposition of administrative decisions. The analysis seeks to clarify the obligatory stipulation's nature and prerequisites, evaluating its importance and the exceptions encapsulated within, and exploring potential avenues to enhance oversight over governmental agencies' performance. Consequently, the study proposes that mandating certain administrative decisions should be a central duty of the administrative authority, especially in instances where the decisions might not align with the public servants' best interests. It further advocates for administrators to precisely delineate the requisite formal and substantive elements in both obligatory and optional contexts, thereby fostering a more accountable decision-making framework. This nuanced approach aims to empower oversight bodies to safeguard public and private interests effectively, amplifying judicial scrutiny over the suitability of administrative decisions and facilitating robust governmental oversight that assures adherence to procedural integrity and promotes enhanced policy performance