Search results

On two different occasions, the Jordanian Constitutional Court has ruled that Articles 51 and 54 of the Jordanian Arbitration Act no. 31 of the year 2001 are unconstitutional and null. In view of this, this paper aims to attempt to give the reader a brief preview of the Jordanian Arbitration Act, the Jordanian Constitution and the Jordanian Constitutional Court. It also highlights and critically analyzes the Jordanian Constitutional Court two decisions pertaining to the Arbitration Act and its special implications in this regard from the perspective of arbitration law and the distinct characteristics embedded in it.

To examine how effective is the approach followed by the Constitutional Court in ruling the unconstitutionality of the aforementioned Articles, this work makes use of the primary and secondary data available in this regard as the main method to complete such an examination. By critically analyzing and comparing the various data contained in these sources, this work identifies the problems associated with such decisions.

This work submits that while the Constitutional Court has rested its rulings largely on constitutional principles, concerns arising from the Arbitration Act perspective have not been dealt with adequately by the Court. Furthermore, it argues that while the principles of the constitution shall be respected, the distinct characteristics of the arbitration law warrant a more careful approach than actually followed by the Court.

Taking into consideration the importance of arbitration as an alternative mean for dispute resolution, the Jordanian legislator has addressed the application of arbitration as early as the year 1953. However, while the Constitutional Court’s questionable approach to the aforementioned articles would necessarily hinder the use of arbitration, no comprehensive scholarly work has either examined such approach or addressed its implications. Accordingly, this work derives its originality and value from being the first of its kind to examine and address such a matter.

In several recent judgments, the Jordanian Court of Cassation has found that using arbitration to resolve individual labor disputes is null. The aforementioned approach which constituted a departure from the well-established former approach that the same court has followed has been confirmed by the new amendments that the Jordanian Arbitration Act has seen in 2018. In view of this, this study aims to highlight and critically analyze the above-mentioned court’s decisions and the new amendments pertaining to arbitration clauses from a Jordanian Labor Law perspective and the distinct characteristics rooted in it to find out the extent to which applying arbitration in such a context is acceptable or not.

To examine how effective are the approaches followed by the Jordanian courts and the legislator in ruling the unacceptability of arbitration clauses in individual labor contracts and to observe to what extent it has been successful in this relation, this work makes use of the secondary data available in this regard as the main method to complete such an examination and this includes the relevant different legislations, court’s decisions and jurisprudence. By critically analyzing and comparing the various data contained in these secondary data sources, this work will identify the problems associated with such approaches and accordingly bring up different recommendations and conclusions.

While the current author do largely agree with the conclusions that have been reached recently by the aforementioned courts, it is submitted that these courts and the legislator have not dealt with such a matter in an adequate and comprehensive manner as they should have spilled more ink on this area of law. Furthermore, this work argues that while the principles that necessitate arbitration shall be respected, the distinct characteristics of the labor law warrant a more careful approach than actually followed by the competent authorities.

Taking into consideration the recent different approaches followed by the Jordanian courts and legislator in ruling the unacceptability of arbitration clauses in individual labor contracts, it would not be a surprise to say that there is no comprehensive and updated scholarly work which has either examined such different approaches or addressed its implications. Accordingly, this work derives its originality and value from being the first and most updated work that examines and addresses such a thorny matter.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the main contract principles which govern the international arbitration contract with special emphasis to examine contract principle found of the Middle East, how international principles of contract are perceived in the region, and whether there are any dominant contract principles.

A general exploratory research procedure used to give a better grasp of various aspects of socio‐legal approaches. The paper seeks to create knowledge that can be used to retrieve some pressing social and organisational understanding in the said region. The first part of the paper examines the role of ethics and tradition in understanding Middle Eastern contract principles. The second part examines the impact of Islamic Law on commercial contract principles. The third section analyses the regional perception of international contract principles. Finally, the paper addresses some contemporary issues of international contracts in the Middle East.

The paper showed that the legal perceptions of international contract principles reflect regional legal thinking which has been influenced by a mixed understanding of regional traditions, Islamic contract law principles as well as Western contract principles when these principles match regional legal culture. Overall, it showed that still under such mixed understanding, there are strong regional legal traditions and these are found in Islamic contract principles and affects commercial contract experiences. In general, a significant difference still exists between modern international contract principles and those in the Middle East.

The paper generates a knowledge that mixed understanding in regard to international contract arbitration principles due historical and cultural reasoning. Arab States does not share common understanding of international contract principles. Thus, it is very superfluous to propose the argument that there is sole Middle Eastern regional perception which dominates every Arab State. Therefore, special understandings and considerations should be given to every international arbitration contract from certain Arab State entity to another.

The paper provides a clear understanding of the guidelines for international commercial arbitration contract in the Middle East. Legal culture should be taken into consideration if a successful contract implementation has to be achieved.

This is the second of two papers which examine the question of whether Arab securities regulations can be the subject matter of a methodological study in comparative securities regulation, especially with reference to EU regulations. Part One was published in Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Volume Eight, Number Four. This paper addresses the specific juridical impact of Shari'a on capital markets, before looking at its impact on capital market laws of Jordan, Kuwait and Oman. In order to provide an empirical insight into existing Arab securities regulations, the paper also surveys the securities and company laws in the aforementioned countries. Such a discussion also includes a brief examination of market conditions, especially the early factors that accompanied the genesis of such Arab securities markets, notably in Kuwait. The paper concludes by addressing the question of the suitability of the Arab markets selected for this study to comparative studies in EU securities regulation, especially in the context of contemporary internationalisation of securities regulation. It explains in the process why the European experience is relevant (particularly in light of the many EU—Arab association agreements to take effect from 2010, together with EU ‘harmonisation’, ‘minimum standards’, and ‘single passport’ regulatory concepts).

This study aims to test the role of the state of occupation, represented in Israel, as one of the most significant challenges, which faces the Jordanian water security. Where Israel expands in its policy and ideology everyday its hydro-hegemony over the Jordanian waters. Hence, its acts result in negative consequences on the Jordanian water and food security, which in turn affects the Jordanian national security as a whole.

This study relied on the following two approached to tackle its problem: first: descriptive approach: the descriptive approach depends on defining the apparent features and describing their nature and the type of the relationship between its variables. It aims to achieving a better and deeper understanding on the situation of its future policies and measures. And research uses the system analysis approach to handle the subject matter. Given the influence of water on the development, Jordan, as an organic or a political and social state, takes into account the reasons and causes of development. Jordan turns into an active political state, with water as an influencing factor on it. This premise represents the core of the system analysis approach.

The research concluded that the Israeli theft of the Jordanian waters is the main factor in the Jordanian water crisis. If Jordan had received its usurped water rights by Israel, it could have been able to solve its water issue represented in the increasing deficit in its water balance. Therefore, the Israeli hydro-hegemony on the Jordanian water resources caused the imbalance in its water security and, in turn, caused the development process to falter in general.

The value of the research lies in the fact that it addresses the most important reasons behind the water crisis in Jordan, represented in the Israeli control over the Jordanian water resources and the research shows that the amount of water stolen by Israel is enough to solve the water crisis in Jordan.

This theme will be addressed through main points: Special Nature of Investment Disputes and its methods of peaceful settlement. International legal framework governing Arbitration in investment disputes: A. Multilateral legal framework. B. Bilateral legal framework/Investment promotion and protection agreementsTypes of arbitration in investment disputes. The Egyptian experience in investment disputes arbitration. The National legal framework. Egypt on the map of investment disputes in the world. A case study. Conclusion: Results related to the legal framework regulating investment disputes in Egypt. Results related to The arbitration cases against Egypt.

The researcher investigates the subject of international arbitration in investment disputes in the framework of voluntary theory, which is based on the premise that the satisfaction of people who are addressing the international legal norm is the basis of the same rule. In other words, the basis of international law is based on the satisfaction of the State and other international legal persons Both, and then express or implied consent.

Despite the availability of domestic and regional arbitration mechanisms in Egypt represented by a large number of cases.

The theme for the study primarily on Egypt and the international arbitration of investment disputes, through theoretical and practical study of disputes arbitration which Egypt is a party defendant in which to focus on what was issued in which the provisions of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, in an attempt to find out the reasons for the verdicts image released it, where it came mostly against Egypt, and whether these judgments against them in investment disputes due to reasons related to the legal framework of the arbitration process, or for reasons of bodies of arbitration issued by those provisions, or to the defense, which represents the Egyptian party, or to the circumstances Economic and political (which represents the investment climate).

The proposed solutions to improve the conditions and factors surrounding the arbitration disputes that Egypt is waging against foreign investors, whether they are initially alleged or accused of drafting agreements and contracts, through amending the relevant legislation and laws, selecting arbitration bodies and defense bodies.

Employers, contractors, subcontractors and engineers often believe that they have a “common language”, which consists of drawings and specifications, notwithstanding that drawings and specifications must be interpreted and understood in their legal context. Accordingly, due to the legal-technical aspects of construction, it is essential that construction contracts should strike the right balance between the interests of all stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to examine this issue in depth.

To examine this issue in depth, this paper is divided into four sections. First, general background on Jordanian construction law. Second, the conformity between the Jordanian law and international federation of consulting engineers (FIDIC) rules. Third, crystallisation of parties autonomy in construction contracts. Fourth, per defects liability in construction contracts as a case study.

Construction disputes are not only a legal issue. It is also a technical challenge to which an interdisciplinary body of legal scholars, contractors, engineers and construction experts should respond by setting flexible standards as practices could change faster than rules. Judges in particular are bound to understand the peculiar technical-legal nature of construction disputes. This should be a good starting point for developing case law in the field of construction which is rather limited. In this way, construction case law can be established gradually and cumulatively on a case by case basis.

As far as the author is aware, the issue of construction contracts in Jordan has not been researched comprehensively before from technical and legal standpoints. This paper represents a first attempt to examine the issues arising in this difficult and important subject.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 and its amendment – the Trade and Competitive Act of 1988 – are unique not only in the history of the accounting and auditing profession, but also in international law. The Acts raised awareness of the need for efficient and adequate internal control systems to prevent illegal acts such as the bribery of foreign officials, political parties and governments to secure or maintain contracts overseas. Its uniqueness is also due to the fact that the USA is the first country to pioneer such a legislation that impacted foreign trade, international law and codes of ethics. The research traces the history of the FCPA before and after its enactment, the role played by the various branches of the United States Government – Congress, Department of Justice, Securities Exchange commission (SEC), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the contributions made by professional associations such as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICFA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the American Bar Association (ABA); and, finally, the role played by various international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). A cultural, ethical and legalistic background will give a better understanding of the FCPA as wll as the rationale for its controversy.

This paper explores the experience of “Shari’a” as non-state law in the English courts through a historical analysis of past Islamic finance dispute resolutions (IFDRs). This paper aims to propose a conceivable scenario relating to the law applicable in international commercial contracts in the English courts with the emergence of the Hague Principles 2015.

This paper addresses several issues that have been raised in English case law: doubts about the legal nature of “Shari’a” as non-state law; the limits placed on freedom of choice of “Shari’a” law by the application of a single legal system; and the distinction between application of law and incorporation by reference of “Shari’a” in IFDRs. The paper then analyses the conformity of “Shari’a” with the provisions now used to resolve Islamic finance disputes (trade and investment) in the English courts, using an empirical analysis of The Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions standards.

The paper provides that, in theory, “Shari’a” standards could play a significant role in IFDRs after Brexit, even though a gap persists in practice because the Hague Principles 2015 have not yet been adopted by the English legal system.

The study focuses on the English courts and shows how the IFDRs could be resolved with the emergence of Hague Principles 2015 in the post-Brexit era.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this paper appears to be the first paper to provide a conceivable scenario relating to the future of the IFDRs in the English courts.