Jordan has a long-standing track record of providing protection to refugees and, in practice, has largely respected the principle of non-refoulement. Through its cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), particularly under the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Jordan affirms that refugees recognized under UNHCR’s mandate should not be returned to countries where they face persecution. The MoU also establishes procedures for refugee status determination (RSD) and protection, serving as the cornerstone of refugee protection in the country.

Jordan is also bound by customary international law and by several human rights treaties it has ratified, including the Convention against Torture (CAT), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Arab Charter on Human Rights, all of which prohibit removal to situations where individuals face persecution, torture, or other serious human rights violations.

At the same time, domestic laws do not explicitly codify the principle of non-refoulement. Jordan is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, and it has not enacted a national asylum law that incorporates non-refoulement as a binding domestic obligation. The Law on Residence and Foreigners’ Affairs No. 24 of 1973 grants the Minister of Interior broad discretionary powers over deportation, without distinguishing between refugees, asylum seekers, and other non-nationals. As a result, protection under domestic law rests on administrative practice and government discretion rather than statutory guarantees.

Nevertheless, Jordan remains bound by the principle of non-refoulement through customary international law and several treaties it has ratified. These include the Convention against Torture (CAT), which prohibits removal to states where there is a risk of torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which prohibits arbitrary expulsion.

In practice, Jordan has generally upheld non-refoulement, particularly in relation to large refugee populations. Although reliance on discretionary administrative processes means that protection ultimately rests on policy and cooperation rather than enforceable domestic legal guarantees, this approach has generally been upheld.