FORUM NON CONVENIENSPDF电子书下载

查看更多关于的内容

CHAPTER 1: COMMON LAW FORUM NON CONVENIENS: FOUR COUNTRIES, FOUR APPROACHES 1

CHAPTER 2: THE UNITED KINGDOM 7

Ⅰ. Scotland: From forum non competens to most appropriate forum 7

Ⅱ. England: From reticence to recognition 11

A. First steps: the oppressive and vexatious principle 11

B. The most suitable forum approach 14

C. Modern forum non conveniens doctrine in England 21

Ⅲ. The impact of the Brussels Convention and Regulation 24

A. The basic framework 25

B. Owusu v. Jackson 28

Ⅳ. Current forum non conveniens analysis in the United Kingdom 33

CHAPTER 3: THE UNITED STATES 37

Ⅰ. Introduction 37

Ⅱ. Early development 37

A. Admiralty roots in the federal courts 39

B. State courts and constitutional issues 40

C. Extending the doctrine beyond admiralty cases 41

Ⅲ. Modern forum non conveniens doctrine 44

A. Gilbert and Koster: The foundations of current doctrine 44

B. Federal transfer rules 48

C. Jurisdictional developments limiting the need for forum non conveniens 49

D. Refinement in the Supreme Court: Piper Aircraft 50

E. Forum non conveniens and international comity 54

F. Discretion to dismiss in whole or in part 57

G. The nationality of the plaintiff 58

H. Parallel litigation and forum selection clauses 64

I. State or federal law? 66

J. Jurisdiction and forum non conveniens 68

K. Non-uniformity among the states 71

Ⅳ. Conclusion 73

CHAPTER 4: CANADA 75

Ⅰ. Common law development of forum non conveniens 75

A. One doctrine, three purposes 75

B. Amchem Products: Clarifying the modern doctrine 78

Ⅱ. Discretion to decline jurisdiction in the Quebec Civil Code 83

CHAPTER 5: AUSTRALIA 87

Ⅰ. Between "vexation and oppression" and the "most appropriate forum" 87

Ⅱ. The "clearly inappropriate forum" test 87

A. Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co. Inc. v. Fay 88

B. Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills Pty. Ltd 90

C. Dow Jones ＆ Co., Inc. v. Gutnick 97

Ⅲ. Internal case allocation: the Cross-Vesting Act 99

Ⅳ. Summary and conclusion 100

CHAPTER 6: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN COMMON LAW FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE 101

Ⅰ. Introduction 101

Ⅱ. Similarities in forum non conveniens doctrines 101

A. The requirement of an available, alternative forum 102

B. Allocation of the general burden of proof on the defendant 103

C. Consideration of private interest factors 104

D. Trial court discretion in applying forum non conveniens analysis 105

E. Ability to impose conditions on a stay or dismissal 105

F. Benefits of existing similarities in comparative analysis 106

Ⅲ. Differences in forum non conveniens doctrines 107

A. Distinctions setting Australia apart 107

1. The clearly inappropriate forum test 107

2. The plaintiff's juridical advantage from its choice of forum 108

B. Distinctions setting the United States apart 111

1. Consideration of public interest factors 111

2. The post-jurisdiction nature of the doctrine 113

3. The false distinction: assumed bias against foreign plaintiffs 114

C. Other distinctions 116

1. A shifting burden of proof 116

2. The Brussels Regulation in the United Kingdom 119

Ⅳ. Conclusions: similarity with distinctions 119

CHAPTER 7: RELATED DOCTRINES IN CIVIL LAW SYSTEMS 121

Ⅰ. Introduction 121

Ⅱ. Germany 122

Ⅲ. Japan 124

Ⅳ. The Brussels Regulation 125

Ⅴ. Latin American efforts to frustrate common law forum non conveniens 128

A. The foundations of Latin American concern 128

B. Delgado v. Shell Oil and increased expressions of concern 130

C. The emergence of forum non conveniens blocking statutes 132

D. A mixed reception for Latin American blocking statutes in U.S. courts 135

Ⅵ. Concluding thoughts 139

CHAPTER 8: THE GLOBAL SEARCH FOR A CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS AND RELATED PROJECTS ADDRESSING LIS PENDENS AND DECLINING JURISDICTION 141

Ⅰ. Introduction 141

Ⅱ. The Hague Conference process 142

A. The original mixed convention model 142

B. Negotiation of a double convention text 144

C. Problems resulting from differing approaches to jurisdiction 146

D. Conclusion of a Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 147

Ⅲ. Rules for declining jurisdiction in a global convention: a place for forum non conveniens? 148

Ⅳ. The American Law Institute and UNIDROIT 159

A. The ALI/UNIDROIT Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure 159

B. The ALI Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Project 162

Ⅴ. Lessons for the future 166

A. Issues among common law states 167

1. Hague Interim Text Article 22 and common law similarities 167

2. Hague Interim Text Article 22 and common law differences 169

B. Issues between civil law and common law states 172

1. The general problem of the "homeward-trend" 172

2. The civil law focus on jurisdiction based on the defendant's domicile 173

3. Differing approaches to the concept of mandatory rules 178

Ⅵ. Looking ahead 180

CHAPTER 9: THE FUTURE FOR NOW: FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE 2005 HAGUE CONVENTION ON CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENTS 183

Ⅰ. Introduction 183

Ⅱ. Forum non conveniens and choice of court agreements in the United States 184

A. Choice of court in U.S. law 185

B. The convergence of choice of court clauses and the forum non conveniens doctrine 191

1. Apparent resolution in Bremen 192

2. Separate doctrines, common issues 192

3. Litigant problems at the intersection of choice of court and forum non conveniens 194

a. The possibilities 194

b. The case law 197

1) Exclusive (mandatory) clauses 198

2) Non-exclusive (permissive) clauses 200

3) Non-exclusive clauses with waiver of objections to venue 201

4) The importance of the clause to the analysis 202

5) Problems with categorization 202

Ⅲ. The rationale for a Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 204

Ⅳ. The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 206

Ⅴ. Conclusion 209

APPENDICES 211

A. 1999 Hague Preliminary Draft Convention Text for a Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 211

B. Relevant provisions of the Nygh/Pocar Report 233

C. 2001 Hague Interim Text for a Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 253

D. 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 311

查看更多关于的内容