Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention

Neil Brannigan
{"title":"Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention","authors":"Neil Brannigan","doi":"10.1080/17441048.2022.2057466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1992, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) commenced the Judgments Project with the aim of delivering a convention harmonising rules of jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Despite the ambition and promise the project held, the first major attempt at delivering a convention, the 2001 Interim Text, was unsuccessful after it failed to gain consensus among the Conference’s Member States. The HCCH scaled back the Judgments Project to focus work on the 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. However, the issue of jurisdiction has not been forgotten, with the Hague having recently established a Working Group to begin drafting provisions for a fresh attempt at the subject which hopefully will succeed where the Interim Text did not. The aim of this article is to explore the issue of how the proposed convention shall address conflicts of jurisdiction in international litigation. A conflict of jurisdiction will typically arise where the same proceedings, or related ones, come before the courts of several fora, or in one forum which considers another forum to be better placed to adjudicate the dispute. One solution to such conflicts is the, originally Scottish, doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction on the basis that the appropriate forum for the trial is abroad or the local forum is inappropriate. This article argues for the inclusion of a version of forum non conveniens in the proposed jurisdiction convention to settle these conflicts when they arise. However, as there are many interpretations of what makes one forum more or less appropriate to hear a case than another, this article tackles the issue of how such a principle could be drafted to achieve consensus at the Hague Conference. Much of this analysis is based on the original 2001 Interim Text, and upon more modern cross-border agreements which utilise forum non conveniens.","PeriodicalId":44028,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Private International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Private International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2022.2057466","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1992, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) commenced the Judgments Project with the aim of delivering a convention harmonising rules of jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Despite the ambition and promise the project held, the first major attempt at delivering a convention, the 2001 Interim Text, was unsuccessful after it failed to gain consensus among the Conference’s Member States. The HCCH scaled back the Judgments Project to focus work on the 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. However, the issue of jurisdiction has not been forgotten, with the Hague having recently established a Working Group to begin drafting provisions for a fresh attempt at the subject which hopefully will succeed where the Interim Text did not. The aim of this article is to explore the issue of how the proposed convention shall address conflicts of jurisdiction in international litigation. A conflict of jurisdiction will typically arise where the same proceedings, or related ones, come before the courts of several fora, or in one forum which considers another forum to be better placed to adjudicate the dispute. One solution to such conflicts is the, originally Scottish, doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction on the basis that the appropriate forum for the trial is abroad or the local forum is inappropriate. This article argues for the inclusion of a version of forum non conveniens in the proposed jurisdiction convention to settle these conflicts when they arise. However, as there are many interpretations of what makes one forum more or less appropriate to hear a case than another, this article tackles the issue of how such a principle could be drafted to achieve consensus at the Hague Conference. Much of this analysis is based on the original 2001 Interim Text, and upon more modern cross-border agreements which utilise forum non conveniens.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解决冲突:在新的海牙管辖权公约中设立不方便法院
1992年,海牙国际私法会议启动了判决项目,旨在制定一项统一管辖权规则以及承认和执行判决的公约。尽管该项目雄心勃勃,充满希望,但在缔约国会议成员国之间未能达成共识后,第一次提出公约的重大尝试,即2001年临时案文,却没有成功。HCCH缩减了判决项目,将工作重点放在2005年《法院选择协议公约》和2019年《承认和执行外国判决公约》上。然而,管辖权问题并没有被忘记,海牙最近成立了一个工作组,开始起草条款,对这一主题进行新的尝试,希望在临时案文没有成功的地方取得成功。本条的目的是探讨拟议公约应如何处理国际诉讼中的管辖权冲突问题。管辖权冲突通常会发生在同一诉讼程序或相关诉讼程序提交给多个法院的情况下,或在一个法院认为另一个法院更适合裁决争议的情况下。这种冲突的一个解决方案是最初是苏格兰的不方便法院原则,该原则允许法院自由裁量权以审判的适当法院在国外或当地法院不合适为由拒绝行使管辖权。本条主张在拟议的管辖权公约中列入一个不方便法院的版本,以解决这些冲突。然而,对于是什么使一个论坛比另一个论坛更适合审理一个案件,有许多解释,本条涉及如何起草这样一项原则以在海牙会议上达成共识的问题。这一分析大多基于2001年的原始临时文本,以及利用不方便法院的更现代的跨境协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
The common law marriage in Australian private international law Can private parties contract out of the Hague Service Convention? Sustainability and jurisdiction in the international civil litigation market The EU private international law framework for civil disputes concerning credit ratings: Exploring the status quo and prospects of reform The Brussels IIb Regulation – Most significant changes compared to its predecessor and enhancement of the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1