The Impact of the Foreign Social Order in the Judge’s State—Reflective Impact—In the Field of Private International Law

If the principle of national attribution indicates the jurisdiction of foreign law to be applied to a legal relationship involving a foreign element, it is expected of national judge to face certain rights and legal positions that have been properly established in foreign law and their holders want to maintain to adhere to its effects. It is well known that adopting the social order to establish of rights in the judge rule differs from invoking its legal effects. While the invocation of the social order holds strong in the former case, it weakens significantly in the latter case, especially in the face of acquired rights and stable relationships. Despite the differences in the origin of these rights within the framework of the national judge’s law, this circumstances led to the concept of the establishing of the mitigation social order or the moderating effect of the social order. This idea has been adopted by the judiciary in many judgments that have agreed with the opinions of jurists in such circumstances. For the sake of allowing, in certain cases, implementing foreign law despite its non-compliance with the national social order. The researcher followed the descriptive and comparative analytical approach, in which led to a set of results and recommendations, the most significant of them is the recognition of acquired rights abroad as moderating the effect of the social order. Still, this does not mean the final exclusion of application of the social order in all cases for any right acquired abroad. The related conflict to the such case should be presented before the national judge. Further, it recommended the necessity of a law in the Jordanian legislation that subjects the invocation of the social order under the supervision of Court of Cassation in national judge placed. This is raised due to the fact that the Court of Cassation’s experience in understanding and interpreting foreign law, and its understanding of the intention of the foreign legislator, is more profound than what an individual judge might have.