Legal and Constitutional Guarantees for Applying the Principle of Legitimate Expectation: An Applied Study in the Emirati, Egyptian, and Iraqi Constitutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principle of legitimate expectation (legitimate trust) arises from the societal need to provide security for established legal statuses; such statuses already extant must not be jeopardized. Individuals have a right to legitimate trust in law based on applicable legal rules or judicial guarantees. A person should not be faced with or surprised by unexpected legal rules or new administrative decisions. The core aim of legitimate expectation is to secure the legal system from any formal and substantive legislative differences or shortcomings embedded in the texts. A legal authority, constitutional or administrative, must exist that is prepared to define the legal text and apply it in the disputes submitted for judgment. The administrative judiciary decides on the legality of those decisions issued against individuals through a formal action (i.e. court case) filed by the individual as plaintiff. In many countries, the key means the administrative judiciary uses to protect the rights of individuals are: the principle of legality, the appeal to misuse, and res judicata. These and the principle of the hierarchy of legal rules as a guarantee of legitimate expectation are discussed at length. The paper examines three categories of legal guarantees regarding individuals’ legitimate expectations: (a) constitutional jurisdiction, (b) administrative jurisdiction and (c) the role played by the legislative and executive authorities in such protection. As examples, empirical representative cases adjudicated in UAE, Egyptian and Iraqi law are discussed in detail.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".