Jordan's Legal System Struggles to Define and Assess Moral Damage Claims
A new legal study has delved into the concept of moral damage under Jordanian law, highlighting confusion surrounding the assessment of psychological harm. The research underscores the lack of clear criteria, leaving judges without fixed guidelines for such cases.
The article dissects the key elements of moral damage as defined in Jordanian statutes, analyzing the conditions under which claims can be made and the recognized cases where compensation applies. The author points to inconsistencies in legal texts and judicial interpretations, creating uncertainty for both claimants and courts.
The study is structured into three parts. Firstly, it reviews the existing legislative and judicial approaches to moral damage. Secondly, it identifies gaps in the current legal framework, including vague definitions and missing assessment standards. Finally, it proposes modern solutions, such as a reference tool to help judges evaluate psychological suffering more precisely.
The research employs a descriptive-analytical method, combining a review of legal texts, expert opinions, and comparative analysis to assess the shortcomings. One major issue is the absence of a unified system for measuring non-material harm, which often leads to inconsistent rulings.
To address these problems, the author suggests integrating psychology insights and modern assessment tools. These could provide a clearer structure for determining compensation amounts. The study also recommends legislative reforms to close existing gaps and standardise judicial practices.
The findings underscore the need for clearer legal definitions and assessment criteria for moral damage in Jordan. Without fixed standards, compensation decisions remain unpredictable. The proposed solutions aim to create a more coherent and fair system for handling such claims in the future.
