Almulhim, Zakaria2022-11-142022-11-142022-08https://hdl.handle.net/11299/243084University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. August 2022. Major: Law, Health, & the Life Sciences, Joint Degree Program in. Advisor: Christopher Roberts. 1 computer file (PDF); x, 256 pages.Judicial review is crucial to keeping the actions and proceedings of the executive authority in conformity with the rule of law. However, some executive actions can enjoy absolute immunity from judicial review when they possess certain qualities, such as actions on the state’s internal or external security or other high policy proceedings. In the Saudi legal system, such exceptions fall under the acts of state doctrine. Like other countries, the Saudi legislature adopted this doctrine as a jurisdictional limitation over the Board of Grievances (the administrative courts, hereinafter the Board). This Dissertation studies the Board’s application of the acts of state doctrine (hereinafter the Doctrine) in Saudi Arabia and its unique correlation and interaction with constitutional authorities. Specifically, the Board’s application has been influenced by the king’s powers under the Kingdom’s structure of government and Sharia. Analysis of the Board’s decisions relevant to the acts of state doctrine shows that the Doctrine has been constitutionally transformed by the declaration of all royal edicts as acts of state immune from judicial review. This Dissertation criticizes the Board’s approach to granting royal edicts immunity. Examination of the scarce reasoning in cases relevant to the Doctrine has revealed that the Board has relied on an unsound interpretation of the Kingdom’s constitutional authorities. The Dissertation argues that the Doctrine’s application is constitutionally unwarranted, since it violates binding Sharia maxims and royal custom and statements.enThesis or Dissertation