A Proposed Framework for Enhancing the Procedures and Conditions for Filing an Annulment Lawsuit Based on Abuse of Power in Mauritania in Light of Contemporary Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to propose a comprehensive framework for reforming the procedures and conditions governing annulment lawsuits based on abuse of power in Mauritania, in light of structural challenges and contemporary legal trends. It employs a descriptive, analytical, and comparative approach, reviewing nearly 60 diverse sources that explore the legal nature of abuse of power and its modern forms (such as deviation of purpose or evasion of judicial enforcement). The study critically assesses the current procedural requirements of annulment lawsuits in Mauritania, including strict time limits and the absence of a concept of legal nullity, and draws on international experiences from countries such as (Germany, Indonesia, Canada, and Austria) that have adopted more flexible procedures and expanded judicial authority. Findings reveal that the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms and the limited discretion of judges in addressing abuse of power constitute major challenges. Accordingly, the research proposes a reform-oriented model that emphasizes the need to codify a legal definition of substantive nullity, abolish the requirement of prior administrative grievance in cases of abuse of power, and activate judicial enforcement mechanisms such as penalty fines, thereby strengthening legal security and combating administrative deviation.///هدف البحث إلى تقديم تصور مقترح لتطوير الإجراءات والشروط لرفع دعوى الإلغاء بسبب الشطط في استعمال السلطة في موريتانيا، في ضوء التحديات البنيوية والتوجهات القانونية المعاصرة. اعتمد البحث المنهج الوصفي التحليلي النقدي المقارن، بتحليل قرابة (60) وثيقة متنوعة؛ تناولت الماهية القانونية للشطط وصوره الحديثة (كتجاوز الغاية أو التهرب من تنفيذ الأحكام)، وقَيَّمَ نقدياً الشروط الإجرائية الحالية لدعوى الإلغاء في موريتانيا (كصرامة الأجل وغياب مفهوم الانعدام القانوني)، واستخلص أبرز التجارب الدولية (كألمانيا وإندونيسيا وكندا والنمسا) في تخفيف القيود الإجرائية وتوسيع سلطة القاضي. وقد توصلت الدراسة إلى أن غياب آلية التنفيذ الفعّالة وضعف السلطة التقديرية للقاضي في مواجهة الشطط يمثلان تحديين رئيسيين. وبناءً عليه، قدم البحث تصوراً إصلاحياً شاملاً يركز على ضرورة إدراج تعريف قانوني للبطلان الجوهري، وإلغاء شرط التظلم الإداري في حالات الشطط، وتفعيل آليات الإلزام القضائي مثل الغرامة التهديدية، لتعزيز الأمن القانوني ومكافحة الانحراف الإداري.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".