Interaction between the doctrines of forum non conveniens, judgment enforcement, and the concept of the rule of law in transnational litigation in the United States

Mantas Pakamanis
{"title":"Interaction between the doctrines of forum non conveniens, judgment enforcement, and the concept of the rule of law in transnational litigation in the United States","authors":"Mantas Pakamanis","doi":"10.1016/j.icj.2015.12.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article analyses the application of the forum non conveniens and the judgment enforcement doctrines in the United States courts and questions its conformity with the concept of the rule of law. The concept of the rule of law, the general principle of international law, inter alia requires accessibility of law, that questions of legal right should be decided by law not discretion, and compliance by the state with its obligations in international law. The systematic analysis by the author of this article shows that the application of the two doctrines in the same dispute firstly might deny accessibility of law and later restrict the possibility to find a solution. Such application by the United States courts can create a lacuna in access to justice. Thus, the following denial of effective access to justice, applying the two doctrines, might not obey the concept of the rule of law.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":32140,"journal":{"name":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","volume":"1 2","pages":"Pages 106-112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.icj.2015.12.003","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351667415000128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This article analyses the application of the forum non conveniens and the judgment enforcement doctrines in the United States courts and questions its conformity with the concept of the rule of law. The concept of the rule of law, the general principle of international law, inter alia requires accessibility of law, that questions of legal right should be decided by law not discretion, and compliance by the state with its obligations in international law. The systematic analysis by the author of this article shows that the application of the two doctrines in the same dispute firstly might deny accessibility of law and later restrict the possibility to find a solution. Such application by the United States courts can create a lacuna in access to justice. Thus, the following denial of effective access to justice, applying the two doctrines, might not obey the concept of the rule of law.

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
美国跨国诉讼中不方便法院原则、判决执行原则与法治理念的互动
本文分析了不方便法院制度和判决执行原则在美国法院的适用,并对其是否符合法治理念提出了质疑。法治的概念,国际法的一般原则,除其他外,要求法律的可及性,法律权利的问题应由法律而不是自由裁量权决定,以及国家遵守其在国际法中的义务。本文的系统分析表明,在同一纠纷中同时适用这两种学说,首先会否定法律的可及性,其次会限制找到解决办法的可能性。美国法院的这种适用可能在诉诸司法方面造成空白。因此,以下拒绝有效诉诸司法的做法,适用这两种原则,可能不符合法治的概念。
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DOMESTIC REFORMS TOWARDS STRENGTHENING THE RULE OF LAW, IN GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, AND UKRAINE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE: WESTERN AND ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES SHOULD THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE DEVELOP A POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE CONDITIONS FOR THE BANKRUPTCY OF NATURAL PERSONS: WHICH BALTIC STATE IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE FOR BANKRUPTCY? WHAT CAN FRANCE LEARN FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC’S APPROACH TO THE ISSUE OF WEARING (ISLAMIC) RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS
×
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