<![CDATA[This study examined the cross-border insolvency regime introduced by Jordan’s Insolvency Law No. 21 of 2018, which made Jordan one of the first Arab states to enact the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. The problem addressed was that the Model Law is a procedural instrument: it allows a foreign insolvency proceeding to be recognised and assisted, but it does not by itself ensure that the judgments produced within that proceeding can be enforced. The research applied a normative legal method combining statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, examining Jordanian primary legal materials alongside the UNCITRAL instruments, European Union insolvency law, and Indonesia’s Law No. 37 of 2004. The findings showed that Jordan adopted the four pillars of the Model Law, namely access, recognition, relief, and cooperation, and anchored them in a definition of the centre of main interests that follows the Model Law’s logic but omits the element of ascertainability by third parties. The study further found that insolvency-related judgments, such as avoidance and plan-confirmation judgments, remain subject to the general regime for foreign judgments under Law No. 8 of 1952, that enterprise groups are not addressed, and that banks and insurers fall outside the Insolvency Law altogether. It was concluded that Jordan’s regime secures recognition but not yet enforcement, and that Indonesia, whose bankruptcy law remains strictly territorial, should adopt the Model Law together with its 2018 companion on insolvency-related judgments rather than in sequence.]]>
