As stated above, the first question in an international case potentially

involving conflict-of-laws problems is which court has jurisdiction to

adjudicate the matter. Although the plaintiff decides where to sue, the
courts in that location may not have jurisdiction, or they may have
jurisdiction but be unwilling to exercise it, for reasons of forum non
conveniens (Latin: inconvenient forum), as may happen in some
common-law countries.
Rationale behind choice of jurisdiction
There are several factors that affect the plaintiffs decision of where to file a case.
One is convenience. For example, a plaintiff is likely to want to sue in a
jurisdiction that is reasonably close to his home, particularly because witnesses and
evidence may be more readily available there. Legal questions also are important.
A plaintiff may be more likely to file suit in a jurisdiction that will afford him
procedural and other advantages and where the defendant has assets with which to
satisfy an ultimate judgment. Examples of likely procedural or substantive law
advantages include the possibility of a jury determination of damages in a tort case,
the availability of punitive damages, the ease of obtaining pretrial discovery of
evidence (commonly used in the United States), the possibility of suing on only a
part of ones claim to determine the likelihood of success before committing
resources to a suit on the entire claim (a common practice in Germany), and
advantageous exploitation of variations in liability standards.
However, the place of suit is not entirely up to the plaintiff. The chosen court must
have the power to entertain the case (jurisdiction to adjudicate). The jurisdictional
grant will usually be defined by statute. In addition, the exercise of jurisdiction
may also be limited (as a check on the statutory grant or on the judicial exercise of
it) by constitutional provisions or pervasive principles of law. In the United
States this is the function of the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution, which limits the exercise of the jurisdiction of
state courts to protect defendants against unreasonable burdens. The Fifth
Amendment similarly limits federal courts in asserting jurisdiction in cases not
based on state law. In addition, in common-law countries, provisions of law or
court decision-making practice may limit the exercise of jurisdiction to adjudicate
for any number of reasons, including the need to prevent local courts from
becoming clogged with litigation with which they have no concern (e.g., litigation
between foreigners concerning a claim that arose abroad), especially when it seems
likely that the courts of the forum state were chosen only as a means of gaining
procedural- or substantive-law advantages not available to the plaintiff in his home
countrys courts (so-called forum shopping). Especially in the United States,
courts may consider themselves to be a forum non conveniens in these
circumstances and dismiss the action. This occurred in Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, a
suit filed in the United States on behalf of Scottish parties whose relatives were
killed in an airplane crash. The flight originated in Scotland and was scheduled to
end there; the aircraft was owned by a British entity; the pilot was Scottish; and all
of the relatives were Scottish. Only the defendantsthe airplane manufacturer
(Piper) and the propeller manufacturerhad a connection to the United States.
Because the plaintiffs sought remedies that were not availableat least not to the
extent desiredunder Scottish law, they decided to bring suit in the United States,
making this a clear case of forum shopping.
American courts may dismiss for forum non conveniens when the exercise of
jurisdiction would be unduly burdensome for the defendant. In many cases,
dismissal protects the foreign defendant as much as it protects the local court from
unfair burdens of foreign litigation. Courts likewise will not entertain actions
concerning title to real property located in another country; while their judgment
would bind the parties before them, the power to deal with the property itself (with
effect as against all potential claimants) belongs solely to the country of location
(situs).
Civil-law countries generally do not dismiss actions for reasons of forum non
conveniens. The European Court of Justice has held expressly that the allocation of
jurisdiction by EU law (namely, the Brussels I Regulation) is binding on national
courts. As an exception, the Brussels II Regulation permits dismissal or transfer
for forum non conveniens reasons in child-custody cases. (See below Recognition
and enforcement of judgments.)
Each country determines the jurisdiction of its courts to entertain a civil law suit. In
federal countries or unitary systems with strong traditions of regional or provincial
jurisdiction (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and
Switzerland), it becomes necessary to have rules to determine in which jurisdiction
a civil suit may be brought. In some countries (e.g., Germany and Austria) the
central (national) law governs, while in others the constituent states may determine
the jurisdiction of their courts themselves (e.g., the United States). Although state-
court jurisdiction is a matter of state law in the United States, federal constitutional
law, particularly the Fourteenth Amendments due process, equal-protection, and
privileges-and-immunities clauses, limits the assertion of state-court jurisdiction.
Most countries allow the parties to agree to the jurisdiction of a court. Consent may
take the form of an express agreement in the initial business contract or at the time
the dispute arises. Alternatively, consent may be the result of conduct. The
plaintiffs consent appears from the filing of the action. The defendants consent
may be presumed when, rather than objecting to the courts jurisdiction, the
defendant confesses judgment or appears and begins to litigate the controversy.
Even when both parties consent to a courts jurisdiction, the court in a common-
law country may still decline to hear the casefor example, when neither of the
parties nor the controversy has a connection to the country in which the court is
located. In most cases, however, a courts jurisdiction is not an issue unless and
until the defendant objects to it.

Differences between civil-law and common-law

countries in the absence of a choice by the parties
Traditionally, civil-law and common-law countries have followed different
approaches in determining which court has jurisdiction in a civil action when the
parties have not agreed on or submitted to the forum. Civil-law countries start from
the premise that there is one principal place where a suit can be filed:
the domicile of an individual or the seat of legal persons such as a corporation
(general jurisdiction). In addition to these general bases of jurisdiction, a suit
ordinarily may be brought in the courts of the place to which the suit has a special
connectione.g., where a tort was committed or where its effects were felt, where
the alleged breach of a contract occurred, or, if title to real property is involved,
where the property is located (specific jurisdiction). Increasingly, countries have
limited the exercise of jurisdiction (and have prohibited parties from varying these
limitations by agreement) for the protection of weaker parties, such as employees
and consumers. Such a pattern has emerged, for example, in the procedural law of
the EU.
Courts in common-law countries, particularly the United States, also assert
jurisdiction on these bases but additionally will exercise jurisdiction simply on the
basis of physical power over the person of the defendant. Thus, a court in the
United States has jurisdiction over a defendant if he has been served with the
documents commencing the suit in the territory of the state in which the court is
located, even if he was there only temporarily or while in transit
(transientjurisdiction). The United Kingdom and Ireland also exercise
jurisdiction on this basis. U.S. law also provides for jurisdiction over a company
when it has been connected in some ongoing way with the state, even if the
particular dispute does not arise out of that connection. Thus, a court is authorized
to assert jurisdiction when the defendant is doing systematic and continuous
business within its state, even if the dispute arose elsewhere.
Most countries provide some bases of jurisdiction for the benefit of local plaintiffs.
French law, for example, grants jurisdiction if the plaintiff possesses French
nationality, and German statutory law permits a local plaintiff to sue an absent
defendant on the basis of any property the defendant may have in Germany,
regardless of whether the litigation is related to the property or even to Germany in
any other way (though modern German court decisions have given provision a
more limited reach). Rules such as these, which favour plaintiffs (transient
jurisdiction also falls into this category), are known as exorbitant rules of
jurisdiction. Within the EU they have been abrogated in cases in which the
defendant is habitually resident within the EU. However, EU member-states may
retain exorbitant jurisdictional bases of national law in cases involving non-EU
defendants. Internationallyi.e., beyond the EUthese rules, as well as the
American doing business jurisdictional rule, are a source of considerable tension.
The Hague Conference on Private International Law sought to formulate an
international convention on jurisdiction and judgment recognition. The effort was
abandoned when the differences proved too large to bridge. Instead, a much more
limited convention on choice of court agreements was adopted in 2005 and
proposed for adoption by member states and others.
Both civil-law and common-law countries have special rules governing suits
for judgments in rem (Latin: with respect to the thing), which
concern proprietarylegal rights. Unlike actions for judgments in personam (Latin:
with respect to the person), which concern personal legal rights and may seek
money damages or injunctions to do or not to do an act, an in rem action seeks a
judgment that produces effects of its own on a legal relationship. Examples include
actions to quiet title to land, to foreclose a mortgage on land (by selling it), and to
remove a partys interest that encumbers title to land. In common-law countries,
family-status actions (e.g., divorce or the creation of an adoptive family-child
relationship) have been likened to in rem actions; for example, in divorce
proceedings, particularly in the United States, the domicile of each spouse localizes
the status and permits the court at the domicile to assert divorce jurisdiction. At the
same time, residence of varying length (from several weeks to several months)
may take the place ofor may presumptively equaldomicile for divorce-
jurisdiction purposes. In contrast, civil-law countries have not likened divorce
jurisdiction to in rem proceedings. They provide for divorce, including the
possibility of ex parte divorce (i.e., only the petitioner is before the court), on the
basis of a close relationship to the forum statee.g., residence of a specified
length of time. Central to the continued divergence of these jurisdictional
approaches is the applicable law: a court following an in rem approach to status
matters will always apply its own law. In contrast, courts in civil-law countries
treat the action as in personam and make a choice-of-law determination that
focuses on personal connecting factors such as the nationality or marital residence
of the parties. Because civil-law courts make choice-of-law decisions with
reference to the particular parties and their case, jurisdictional standards can be
more liberal in those countries than in common-law countries, where less-
restrictive standards would lead to forum shopping.

Notification of parties
Fundamental fairness requires that the defendant receive notice sufficient to afford
him an opportunity to defend. In common-law countries this notice is effected by
service of process on the defendant; similar procedures exist in civil-law
countries. Service on the defendant in person is considered ideal; alternatively,
substituted service (e.g., even by publication) is a last resort when the
whereabouts of the defendant are unknown. International cases pose special
problems. Countries often cooperate bilaterally, either on the basis of express
agreements or as a matter of practice, in aiding each others courts to effect service
on the defendant. A very effective multilateral mechanism is the Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in
Civil or Commercial Matters, to which some 50 countries, including the United
States, China, Russia, and all the EU states, are party. It provides for a Central
Authority in each member state that receives service requests from other
convention states and executes them according to its own national procedures.