On June 21, 2026, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan resumed the execution of capital punishment after a voluntary moratorium that lasted nearly nine years.

This decision involved the execution of six individuals convicted in cases related to terrorism and serious criminal offenses.

This measure comes in light of Jordan's efforts to enhance internal security and deter crime, but it places the Kingdom at odds with European stances that oppose the death penalty.

Jordan's decision to resume the death penalty reflects a set of domestic motives and reasons closely linked to its efforts in combating crime and strengthening national security. This decision, which ended an unannounced moratorium, came after government evaluations regarding the importance of the punishment as a tool for deterrence and maintaining the rule of law.

According to sources, one of the most prominent reasons driving Jordan to re-activate the death penalty is the firm belief that it "sends a strong deterrent message against perpetrators of serious crimes, especially those that threaten national security and society."

According to available data, the cases in which the executions were carried out included terrorist crimes, such as those linked to the "Salt Cell" which resulted in the deaths of security personnel, in addition to cases involving drug traffickers who violently resisted authority. The Jordanian government believes that implementing this punishment expresses a firm state stance in confronting these threats and enhances citizens' confidence in the state's ability to protect their lives and property.

In recent years, Jordan has not been dealing with conventional challenges alone. The northern and eastern borders have witnessed extensive smuggling attempts, and threats have emerged from organized networks utilizing armed violence against security agencies. In such environments, states typically lean toward tightening their legal and punitive instruments to demonstrate firmness and restore the prestige of the law.

Some believe that executing these sentences comes in the context of asserting the rule of Jordanian law and completing the necessary judicial and constitutional procedures for cases that have reached final rulings. Reports have noted that this decision also aims to honor the security martyrs who fell victim to these crimes and to provide justice to their families. Jordan considers that these measures are carried out within a legal and legitimate framework under the supervision of the Attorney General of the State Security Court and in accordance with Article 359 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

Reports show that the Jordanian government evaluated the role of the death penalty as an effective deterrent tool. Following a period of suspension, there may have been a feeling that freezing the punishment had affected the level of deterrence required to confront the rise of certain types of crimes. Consequently, the return to execution is considered an attempt to restore this deterrent role and prevent the recurrence of similar crimes in the future.

However, Jordan's decision to resume executions is expected to provoke strong and negative reactions, particularly from the European Union and its member states. This expectation is based on information and personal feedback observed from European officials in the Kingdom.

These reactions stem from the European Union's firm and explicit stance against the death penalty, which is considered a core principle of its foreign and human rights policy, while the EU is concurrently one of the prominent backers of the Kingdom.

The European Union and its Council categorically declare their opposition to the death penalty under all circumstances and conditions as an established principle declared in all EU statements, which is emphasized on occasions such as the "European and World Day Against the Death Penalty."

The European Union considers the abolition of the death penalty a fundamental criterion for commitment to human rights, and even one of the prerequisites for joining it. Therefore, any step toward applying this punishment by a partner country is viewed as a retreat from international human rights standards.

It is unlikely that this decision could affect the prospects of future cooperation between Jordan and the European Union, especially in areas requiring a mutual commitment to international human rights standards; however, this does not mean there is no state of anger among Europeans over what took place, as I have learned.

Therefore, Jordanian diplomacy must be prepared to provide comprehensive explanations regarding the mechanisms of transparency and the judicial procedures followed, and to emphasize its commitment to human rights within the framework of its national law, with European funders.

The most important question is not whether the Europeans are angry or not, but rather how Jordan will manage this anger without it turning into a situation that impacts mutual interests.

The answer begins with transparency. The more capable the state is of explaining the legal and constitutional bases upon which the rulings relied, and the more it confirms that all levels of litigation have been exhausted and judicial guarantees were provided, the easier it becomes to defend its position before its international partners.

Jordan also needs to emphasize a point that is often absent from international human rights debates: security for the countries of the region is not a political luxury, but rather a fundamental prerequisite for stability and development. A state that fails to protect its citizens or deter those targeting its security faces a direct threat to its ability to perform its core functions.

Nevertheless, maintaining this balance requires Amman to look beyond the execution itself. The real battle against crime and terrorism is not settled by harsh punishments alone, but rather through a broader system that encompasses swift justice, economic opportunities, education, rehabilitation, and bolstering trust in public institutions.

Jordan does not appear to be heading toward a confrontation with Europe because of this decision, but it stands before a delicate diplomatic test. The Kingdom is required to defend its sovereign right to protect its national security, while simultaneously preserving its network of international relations, which forms an important pillar for its economic and political stability.