Intervention in Litigation in the Civil Proceedings: A Comparative Study

The Jordanian, Iraqi, and French legislators have allowed a nonparty to intervene in ongoing litigation as a matter of right before the courts, even if he is not a party in litigation nor a representative by joining one of the parties to support their point of view in the case. This is called the joint intervention. The Jordanian legislator did not allow this intervention for the first time before a court in accordance with the principle of litigation in two degrees. While the Iraqi and French legislators who expressly stated that it is permissible, and allowed the others to intervene and demand an independent right from the litigating parties and against them. This is called the original intervention, under the conditions, procedures and controls stipulated by the law. At the same time, the original litigants are allowed to introduce a third party under an executive ruling or a decision by the court. This is called a third party litigation.  The Jordanian legislator defined the cases permitting the introduction of an intervener under a court order exclusively. It was more reasonable for the Jordanian legislator to the give the court the powers to assess these cases and not limit them to specific ones as conducted by the Iraqi and the French legislators. Keywords: Intervention, introduction, third party, litigation. DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/85-11 Publication date:May 31st 2019

The Provisions of Supervisor Responsibility in the Jordanian Civil Code

Neither harm nor malice, he who inflicted harm on others shall have personal and direct responsibilitytowards the injured party.He is legally obliged in his personal capacity for liability and damage reparation.For the purpose of granting the injured party a more favorable interest, the law provided for additional responsibility, in deviation from the original rule, called the Supervisor Responsibility,that grants the injured party the right toreferto a person other than the perpetrator of the damage if there are conditions and descriptions in both the perpetrator of the damage and the third party to whom the injured party has the right to refer to guarantee the damage.This study aims to clarify these personal conditions and descriptions, the relationship of the damageperpetrator with the third party who will holds direct liability, the guarantee of the harmful act, the statement of the basis of suchresponsibility, and the special and general aspects of defense made by the supervisors to hold themselves not responsible. Keywords: Assumed Responsibility; Supervisors; Damage; Actual Authority DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/86-10 Publication date:June 30th 201

The Legitimacy of Cloning under the Jordanian Law

Two decades ago, a female sheep called (Dolly) was cloned. Cloning the latter sheep attracted a global attention. It indicated that humans can be successfully cloned. People’s attitudes towards cloning differ. For instance, there are people who believe that cloning is legitimate and others who believe that it’s not. Others have neutral attitudes towards cloning. Due to such a scientific discovery, many countries – especially European countries – enacted legislations that govern cloning. Some of those legislations legitimize cloning, whereas others don’t. However, the Arab and Islamic countries are still in need to enact legislations that govern cloning. There are political factors that affect countries’ views about the legitimacy of cloning. Therefore, there are countries that have cooperated with one another in terms of setting legislations that govern cloning. There are also countries that have cooperated in identifying the definition, types and legitimacy of cloning.  Due to the difference between countries in terms of religion, and political views, countries differ in their views about the legitimacy of cloning. The researchers of the present study recommend enacting national legislations that govern cloning and its legitimacy by the Jordanian legislator. Key words:      Cloning , Stem Cell , Genetic Engineering , Genom

The Legitimacy of Cloning under the Jordanian Law

Two decades ago, a female sheep called (Dolly) was cloned. Cloning the latter sheep attracted a global attention. It indicated that humans can be successfully cloned. People’s attitudes towards cloning differ. For instance, there are people who believe that cloning is legitimate and others who believe that it’s not. Others have neutral attitudes towards cloning. Due to such a scientific discovery, many countries – especially European countries – enacted legislations that govern cloning. Some of those legislations legitimize cloning, whereas others don’t. However, the Arab and Islamic countries are still in need to enact legislations that govern cloning. There are political factors that affect countries’ views about the legitimacy of cloning. Therefore, there are countries that have cooperated with one another in terms of setting legislations that govern cloning. There are also countries that have cooperated in identifying the definition, types and legitimacy of cloning.  Due to the difference between countries in terms of religion, and political views, countries differ in their views about the legitimacy of cloning. The researchers of the present study recommend enacting national legislations that govern cloning and its legitimacy by the Jordanian legislator. Key words:      Cloning , Stem Cell , Genetic Engineering , Genom