Acts of sovereignty in law, jurisprudence and judiciary : a comparative study on sudanese, Tunisian and Tunisian law, jurisprudence and judiciary

الملخص EN

This research paper discussed the Acts of Sovereignty in Sudanese, Tunisian and Saudi Law, Jurisprudence and judiciary, as a trial to compare between approaches in these three different ideologies putting in consideration that Sudan adopts the Anglo-Saxon Legal school, Tunisia adopts the Latin Legal School, while Saudi Arabia adopts the Islamic Legal School, in order to explore the differences between them in identification what the Acts of Sovereignty are? The research problem was the ambiguity of the concept of the acts of sovereignty, because what falls within the scope of these acts has not been precisely defined, therefore this research paper tried to respond to this problem by assuming that the lack of accurate identification of the acts of sovereignty has several causes, including the difference of ideological reference in countries, so the research adopted the inductive approach to present multiple jurisprudence opinions in this regard, as well as to present legal texts and related judicial rulings, and then - using the analytical method - analyzing texts, judicial rulings and jurisprudence opinions to conclude to results that serve the research problem.

The research concluded to find that many factors affects the identification of Acts of sovereignty.

Among these factors: Ideology, political and Temporary circumstances.