Judicial institutions, the legitimacy of Islamic state law and democratic transition in Egypt: Can a shift toward a common law model of adjudication improve the prospects of a successful democratic transition?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a long and divisive battle, Egypt approved its first post-authoritarian constitution (the "2012 Constitution") in a highly controversial referendum held in late December 2012. 1 Far from uniting Egypt's disparate political factions, the constitutional drafting process exposed the deep fissures underlying the modern Egyptian republic. 2One of the most divisive of these issues is the extent to which the modern Egyptian legal system ought to be dependent upon the "Sharia," or Islamic law.While Article 2 of the 2012 Constitution --which provides, among other things, that the principles (mabdi) of Islamic law are the main source of legislation for the state --survives unchanged from the pre-revolutionary 1971 Constitution as amended in 1980, the 2012 Constitution added additional provisions concerning religion generally, and not just Islamic law.The new Article 3 provides that the principles of the religious laws of Egyptian Jews and Egyptian Christians are the main source for legislation governing their religious communities and their family relations.The new Article 4 provides enhanced stature for the Azhar, the mosque-college that represents the official religious establishment in Egypt.This Article, in addition to recognizing the Azhar as an independent institution, also provides that "the views of the Committee of the Senior Scholars are to be taken into 1 For the official Arabic version, see http://egelections-2011.appspot.com/
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".