Environmental Governance and Administrative Judiciary in Jordan and France: A Socio-Legal Comparative Study

Abstract

This article examines the role of administrative judiciaries in environmental governance through a socio-legal comparative study of Jordan and France. Drawing on Environmental Governance Theory and the law-and-society approach, the study analyzes how judicial oversight shapes environmental regulation, administrative accountability, and policy implementation in two civil-law systems at different stages of institutional development. Using Jordan as an emerging case and France as a mature reference model, the research relies on doctrinal analysis of legislation, judicial practice, and secondary case law, complemented by socio-legal scholarship. The findings show that Jordan’s administrative judiciary is gradually expanding its role in environmental protection by reviewing regulatory failures, enforcing statutory obligations, and developing doctrines such as administrative liability for ecological harm. Although judicial intervention remains cautious, ongoing legal reforms and capacitybuilding initiatives indicate a trajectory toward stronger judicial engagement. By contrast, France’s long-established administrative judiciary operates within a constitutional framework that explicitly recognizes environmental rights, enabling more proactive judicial intervention, including enforcement of state obligations in environmental and climate governance. The comparative analysis demonstrates that while institutional maturity and constitutional design shape the intensity of judicial action, administrative courts in both systems function as key governance actors. The study contributes to the literature by highlighting how administrative adjudication can reinforce environmental governance beyond formal regulation, emphasizing the importance of judicial authority, access to justice, and institutional capacity in advancing sustainable development.