The Role of the Judge in the Proof

The means of proof are one of the most critical topics that individuals resort to protect their rights, and they are created by law to prove the disputed facts. Jordanian law has stipulated the means of proof in both civil and law of proof. The law specified these means that must be presented upon request from the court through a means. The claim is the lawsuit, and the legally charged with providing the means of proof or payment are the litigants, but does the judge have a role in the proof, knowing that the Jordanian law, in addition to other legislation, has taken the principle of the judge's impartiality in proof. The judge's impartiality in proof means that it is up to the litigants, in principle, to provide proof for the facts or legal actions they claim, and the judge has no choice but to rely on facts and proof presented in the lawsuit by the litigants.However, the judge's impartiality principle in the proof is not absolute. The law has given the judge, of his own accord, the right to direct an interrogation to one of the litigants, direct a supplementary oath, conduct inspection and expertise, and others, even if the litigants did not request it. These methods were given by the law, which gave the judge the right to resort to them during the consideration of the case, and they are the subject of this research. Keywords: Judge, Proof, disputed facts, Jordanian law DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/127-06 Publication date: December 31st 202

Public Amicable Settlement of Disputes in Accordance with Jordanian Law: A Comparative Study

Public disputes are those controversies that may arise between the insured or with his rights on the one hand and the agencies of Social Security on the other hand about renderings kind and cash entitlement or not and expanding the field of application of this disputes to include obligations rests with the employer and relating to non-implementation of the obligations to the Fund in the legal proper time[1], More specifically legislator of insurance has developed a set of rules governing the relationship between the insurance institution and worked with the parties, particularly the insured and the employer and that the report of a set of rights and duties and breach could lead to disagreements of a general nature, Where the insurance institution issues decisions within the framework of the relationship between them and the insured or employers arise naturally rights and consequent duties and raised legal graduated according to the nature of their medical disputes or technical disputes, in an administrative decision, which the insurance institution issued as part of a secure work-related injuries and occupational diseases may be subject refused to provide for the rights established by law and may be the subject of the decision to pay sums of money, whether sanctions or increases delays or forced collection if it related to the employer,  in  this regard the legal rules of public disputes in terms of the organization of space into two parts: The first Section relates to disagreements relating to the rights of insured and with their rights in this aspect the focus of dispute mainly about insurance benefits entitlement or not, and this either for breach of the institution obligations in payment of compensation or non-eligibility of the beneficiary or with his rights to benefit from renderings in-kind and cash for non-of insurance file for the conditions and procedures laid down legally. [1] J.-P. Chauchard, manuel Droit de la sécurité sociale, 2e ed., L.G.D.J.,1998, P.218; S. Julliot-Bernard et J. Moret Bailly, Les nouveaux contentieux des professions de santé, Dr. Social sept-octobre 1996, p. 840.  La modification du contentieux des relations entre l'assurance maladie et les professions de santé, Bull soc. Fr. Lefèvre, février 1997, p. 65.  H. Ouaissi, Contentieux général de la sécurité sociale et de la mutualité sociale agricole, Juris.-Class. Procédure civile, 2009, P P.2. Semati Tayeb , public disputes in the field of social security in the light of the new law, op. Cit., P. 13  et seq. Ben Sari Yassin, social security disputes in Algerian legislation, op. Cit., S12-13.

Deserts In The City: White Land And Regime Survival In The Gulf

The problem of ‘White Land’ (undeveloped urban land that is temporarily withheld from the market to increase land prices) emerged in Saudi Arabia as an unintended consequence of a survival strategy of land distribution to elites. Unfortunately, such a situation has become a daunting problem that kept the citizens of the kingdom remain unable to address their housing needs given ever-rising prices. To the contrary, despite its political, social and economic similarities, we do not witness citizens of the neighboring country of Oman suffering from the unaffordability of the housing market in their country. What does explain the variation in these two countries? In this dissertation, I argue that the prevalence of ‘White Land’ and the obstacles it poses to Saudi Arabia is an unintended outcome of a historical survival strategy to distribute land to the newly created elites. Saudi Arabia replaced its old established elites which had a considerable economic power with new ones that lack such an economic base. Such a historic decision by the government, and its land distribution strategy, resulted in the new elites’ domination of the real estate market to enrich themselves, which in turn put the greater citizens of the kingdom at risk. On the other hand, however, the old established Omani elites have not been replaced, which points to the fact that the Omani government did not face similar obstacles like what we see in Saudi Arabia. In this project, I explain that because the Omani elites’ economic base is not only dependent on land speculation, the impact on the housing market and the citizens’ ability to afford them has been very much minimal. Therefore, using this comparative case study, the dissertation further assesses why the Saudi government is unable to come up with a working policy to address the housing crisis. In arguing as well as explaining such a question, I have utilized case studies of the two countries using the comparative method and interviews that I conducted throughout my fieldwork in the two countries

Measuring Sentences Similarity Based on Discourse Representation Structure

The problem of measuring similarity between sentences is crucial for many applications in Natural Language Processing (NLP). Most of the proposed approaches depend on similarity of words in sentences. This research considers semantic relations between words in calculating sentence similarity. This paper uses Discourse Representation Structure (DRS) of natural language sentences to measure similarity. DRS captures the structure and semantic information of sentences. Moreover, the estimation of similarity between sentences depends on semantic coverage of relations of the first sentence in the other sentence. Experiments show that exploiting structural information achieves better results than traditional word-to-word approaches. Moreover, the proposed method outperforms similar approaches on a standard benchmark dataset