CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

ABDULLAH ALDMOUR CYIL 11 (2020) “[T]he application, in the case of the matrimonial and divorce regime between spouses, of the national law of the spouse, must be abandoned since its incompatible with the rules on gender equality stipulated in the German Federal Constitution.” 29 In Jordan, in light of the principle of equality between citizens derived from Article 6 of the Constitution, the principle of bilaterally derived from Article 103 of the Constitution, and the principle, so called, the “principle of safeguarding foreigners” derived from the same constitutional Article, there is a considerable scope for investigating on several rules on private international law. The examination of certain rules on conflicts of laws provided in Civil Code shows that such a discrimination appears notably regarding to the issues of Jordanian nationality, the personal status and the estates. However, in this field, the Jordanian private international law seems to be moving towards the consecration of the husband’s domination over his wife, and more generally a domination of man over the woman. To clarify these aspects, it is necessary In the event of a positive conflict of nationalities, i.e. in the case where the individual has several nationalities at the same time, the solution chosen by the Jordanian legislator is to favourite the Jordanian nationality. Article 26 of the Civil Code provides that: The law of Jordan must be applied in the case of persons shown to have at the same time the Jordanian nationality and of another State. In contrast, in the presence of a positive conflict that does not involve the Jordanian nationality, it is the duty of the court to determine which nationality to retain in order to determine the applicable law. The prevailing opinion in the doctrine and jurisprudence preconize to take into account the actual “habitual” nationality to which the person appears in fact most attached. This trend was adopted by Article 50 of The Hague Convention of 1930 on issues relating to the conflicts of nationalities, as well as by the practice of the ICJ. 30 The solution therefore seems to be imposed under Article 25 as a general principle of private international law 31 . This approach demonstrates that these solutions to the question of positive conflict of nationalities are always to favour the national law over the foreign laws, making this connecting factor as a political issue. The likelihood of using the nationality as a connecting factor broadly used in Jordanian private international law in personal status issues, is due to the intentional desire of the legislator for protecting the national interests of the Jordanian citizens. However, this argument is not imbued with a spirit of a uniform protection of international private relationships, and therefore it leads to minimize the possibility of internationalizing the Jordanian rules of private international law. to turn to certain rules on conflicts of laws. The positive conflict of nationalities

29 Voy. IPRax , (1983), 223, note D. Heinrich, 208-210. Voy. IPRax , (1985), 290, note G. Beitzke, 268-272, See BURUIANÃ, Monica-Elena V. L’application de la Loi Etrangère en Droit International Privé, thèse de doctorat , Université de Bordeaux , 25 mai (2016):70. 30 CIJ, Nottebohm ( Liechtenstien vs Guatemala ), (6 April 1955). 31 H. Al-Dabbagh, op.cit . 906.

440