You are here

Missing perspective

Mar 04,2017 - Last updated at Mar 04,2017

The 49 recommendations adopted by the Royal committee on legal reforms touched upon almost every conceivable legal dimension of the judiciary, albeit in general terms and in non-legal terms.

The committee’s proposals were generally hailed as possibly a breakthrough in the national quest for a more up-to-date and well-functioning judiciary.

But what is glaringly missing is the perspective and input of the committee on the place of international treaties in the domestic legal field, especially those related to human rights.

Jordan has a “dual” system of international law, which means that international conventions ratified in accordance with the national Constitution will not have a direct applicability until they are duly incorporated into the relevant national laws by Parliament.

Countries with a single system of international law do not have this problem as all treaties duly ratified will have direct application domestically.

The question that arises is why the committee neglected to address this aspect of the judicial system in the country, especially when the applicability of the international conventions, especially those related to human rights, is still in doubt.

To be exact, there are very few legal precedents in the country where the court referred to an international human rights treaty, and only in passing and without giving guidance on their direct applicability in domestic courts.

What stands out among the main international human rights conventions are, of course, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention against Torture and the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Last week, Jordan had its sixth periodic report on the extent to which it observes its obligations under CEDAW, to determine whether all forms of discrimination against women are prohibited in law and practice in the country.

The CEDAW committee found grave discrepancies between the laws of the country and the provisions of the treaty.

Other Jordanian periodic reports with regard to other international human rights instruments are also available for the perusal of the committee in due course.

It was expected that the committee would be seized with this dimension of the judicial system in the country and pronounce itself on their applicability and place in the domestic legal order.

Even more pressing is how to deal with the alleged existing violations of international human rights norms. 

 

This much the committee failed to do, but it can still rectify this omission at a later stage.

up
66 users have voted.


Newsletter

Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.

PDF