Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T16:32:40.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jurisdiction, Choice of law and the Elusive Goal of Decisional Harmony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Friedrich K. Juenger
Friedrich K. Juenger
Affiliation:
Professor of Law, University of California at Davis.
Get access

Extract

The scholarly contributions of C.C.A. Voskuil—Bert to his friends—include a number of publications devoted to various aspects of international civil procedure, a topic all too often neglected by conflicts scholars. He has paid special attention to jurisdictional issues, which furnished the topic for the doctoral thesis he presented thirty years ago. The honoree's emphasis on the procedural side of private international law reflects a commendable awareness of the implications jurisdictional and other adjective rules have in practice, and how they touch upon the theoretical foundations of our discipline. It therefore seems appropriate to discuss some of these implications in the Liber Amicorum dedicated to our Dutch friend and colleague.

Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 39 , Special Issue S1: Law and Reality , October 1992 , pp. 137 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, e.g., ‘Party Autonomy in the Law of International Judicial Jurisdiction in the Netherlands’, in Realism in Law-Making, Liber Amicorum W. Riphagen (1986) p. 261Google Scholar; ‘De intemationale bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter (een herwaardering)’ [International jurisdiction of the Dutch judge (a re-evaluation)], in AA (1985) p. 776Google Scholar; ‘La litispendence en droit international privé néerlandais’, in De Conflictu Legum, Liber Amicorum R. Kollewijn and J. Offer haus (1962) p. 502.Google Scholar

2. De internationale bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter — in het bijzonder in zaken van echtscheiding en alimentatie [International jurisdiction of the Dutch judge, in particular with respect to divorce and maintenance] (1962).

3. Story, J., Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, 2nd edn. (1841) p. 8.Google Scholar

4. See Juenger, F.K., ‘General Course on Private International Law’, 193 Hague Recueil (1985–IV) p. 118 at 162–163.Google Scholar

5. von Savigny, F., System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, vol. 8 (1849) p. 129.Google Scholar

6. See, e.g., Kropholler, J., Internationales Privatrecht (1990) p. 32 (‘Entscheidungseinklang’)Google Scholar; Mayer, P., Droit international privé, 3rd edn. (1987) p. 45 (‘harmonie des solutions’).Google Scholar

7. Von Savigny, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 114.Google Scholar

8. See, e.g., section 1 of the 1978 Austrian Conflict of Law Statute; Art 15(1) of the 1987 Swiss Conflict of Law Statute.

9. See Kegel, G., ‘Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers’, 27 Am. J. Comp. L. (1979) pp. 615, 616, 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. On the notion of ‘international privatrechtliche Gerechtigkeit’, see Kegel, G., Internationales Privatrecht, 6th edn. (1987) pp. 80–82.Google Scholar

11. See In re Paris Air Crash of 3 03 1974Google Scholar, 399 F. Supp. 732 (C.D. Cal. 1975).

12. See Speiser, S., Lawsuit (1980) pp. 426–429, 438–439Google Scholar (‘seminars’ conducted for English solicitors by American aviation law experts).

13. The one jury verdict, rendered in favor of the two orphaned daughters of an English couple, yielded an award of one and one-half million dollars. That verdict, almost forty times die maximum recoverable under the Warsaw Convention and many times the amount recoverable in England, provided the benchmark for settling the remaining cases. See Speiser, , op. cit. n. 12, p. 463.Google Scholar

14. See Speiser, , op. cit n. 12, pp. 452–455.Google Scholar

15. See Juenger, F.K., ‘Forum Shopping, Domestic and International’, 63 Tul. L. Rev. (1989) pp. 553 at 572–573.Google Scholar

16. For an overview see von Overbeck, A.E., ‘Cours Général’, 176 Hague Recueil (1982–III) p. 9.Google Scholar Since Von Overbeck published his study of codificatory efforts several countries, notably Germany and Switzerland, promulgated conflicts codes.

17. Von Savigny, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 114.Google Scholar

18. Idem.

19. See idem.

20. See Juenger, , loc. cit. n. 4, pp. 191–201, 205–206.Google Scholar

21. See idem, pp. 201–202, 236–242.

22. For a brief but incisive enumeration of the problems these conventions created in practical application, see Wolff, M., Private International Law, 2nd edn. (1950) p. 50.Google Scholar See also Juenger, , loc. cit. n.4, pp. 184–188.Google Scholar

23. For instance, the 1973 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Products Liability, a subject of increasing worldwide importance, has only attracted six ratifications; the 1985 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition has so far garnered only two.

24. See the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (23 ratifications and accessions).

25. See the 1956 United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance (47 ratifications).

26. See the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (86 ratifications).

27. Ehrenzweig, A.A., Private International Law, vol. 1 (1967) p. 107.Google Scholar

28. See Lugano Convention Art. 3, which lists the exorbitant jurisdictional bases — including the notorious Art. 14 of die French Civil Code and section 23 of the German Code of Civil Procedure — and prohibits their use against Common Market and EFTA dormciliaries.

29. BGH 11. Senat 2 July 1991, NJW (1991) p. 3092.

30. Cour de cassation civ. 1re 18 12 1990Google Scholar, Rev. crit. dr. int. priv. (1991) p. 759, with a note by B. Ancel, idem at p. 760.

31. Cour de cassation civ. 1re 21 January 1992, not yet published.

32. ‘It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.’ New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann. 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

33. Keeton, v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 779 (1984).Google Scholar

34. The Atlantic Star, 1974 A.C. 436, 471.

35. Kline, Smith & French Laboratories, Ltd. v. Bloch, [1983] 1 WLR 730, 733 (C.A. 1982).Google Scholar

36. The Atlantic Star, 1973 Q.B. 364, 381.

37. Cheshire, G. and North, P.M., Private International Law, 11th edn. (1987) p. 233.Google Scholar

38. For the doctrine's evolution in American law see Barrett, E.L., ‘The Doctrine of Forum non Conveniens’, 35 Calif. L. Rev. (1947) p. 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. See, e.g., Ala. Code section 6–5–430; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code section 410.30. As among federal courts, die Judicial Code permits transfers ‘for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.’, 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a).

40. See Juenger, , loc. cit. n. 15, pp. 556, 563–564.Google Scholar

41. See Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, , 330 U.S. 501 (1947).Google Scholar

42. See Cheshire, and North, , op. cit n. 37, pp. 223, 231–234.Google Scholar Since the Brussels Convention's rules on jurisdiction are considered to be mandatory rather than merely permissive, see infra n. 45 and accompanying text English courts have lost their discretionary power to dismiss cases to which the Convention applies.

43. See, e.g., Garner, M., ‘Towards an Australian Doctrine of Forum non Conveniens?’, 38 ICLQ (1989) p. 361CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Paterson, R.K., ‘Forum Non Conveniens in New Zealand’, 13 N.Z.U.L. Rev. (1989) p. 337.Google Scholar

44. An exception is The Netherlands. See Art. 429(c) Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering [Code of Civil Procedure].

45. See Schlosser Report, OJ No. C 59/71,97 of 5.3.1979.

46. 786 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. 1990).

47. See idem, pp. 681–689 (Doggett, J., concurring).

48. Shaffer, v. Heitner, , 433 U.S. 186 (1977)Google Scholar.

49. See Burnham, v. Superior Court, 110 S.Ct. 2105 (1990).Google Scholar

50. See Juenger, F.K., ‘La convention de Bruxelles du 27 septemhre 1968 et la courtoisie intemationale — réflexions d'un améncain’, Rev. crit. dr. Int. priv. 72 (1983) pp. 37, 41–42.Google Scholar

51. See Arts. 2, 5(2).

52. See Arts. 7–12A.

53. See Arts. 13–15.

54. ‘The injured party, who must establish the unlawful act, is automatically deemed the weaker party and as such worthy of protection in the choice of the court having jurisdiction.’ Handelskwekerij G.J. Bier B.V. v. Mines de Potasse d'Alsace S.A., [1976] ECR 1735, 1757.

55. ‘[T]he expression “place where the harmful event occurred”, in Article 5(3) of the Convention, must be understood as being intended to cover both die place where die damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it.’ Idem, p. 1747.

56. Cogent examples can be found in the European conflicts case law dealing with unreasonable foreign impediments to divorce and remarriage. Throwing off the shackles of a superannuated doctrine, which had informed precedent, statutes and Hague conventions, judges refused to apply foreign rules that curtailed the parries' freedom to sunder marital ties and enter into new ones. See Juenger, , loc. cit n. 4, pp. 309–318.Google Scholar

57. The favor divortii vel matrimonii shown by courts in the more progressive European nations, for instance, was bound to promote subsequent domestic relations law reforms in countries such as Italy and Spain.

58. Jitta, D. Josephus, La méthode du droit international privé (1890) p. 44.Google Scholar

59. Idem, p. 221.