Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Divorce Cases: Forum Non Conveniens

1987 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul R. Beaumont
Keyword(s):  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Conflicts Of Jurisdiction

scholarly journals Conflicting Approaches to Conflicts of Jurisdiction: The Brussels Convention and Forum Non Conveniens

2002 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 261
Author(s):  
Christopher D Bougen
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Future ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Conflicts Of Jurisdiction

In developing an earlier article, published as “Time to Revisit Forum Non Conveniens in the United Kingdom? Group Josi Reinsurance Co v UGIC (2000) 32 VUWLR 705, this paper takes the debate further. The discretionary doctrine of forum non conveniens continues to be a controversial doctrine, and its relationship with the mandatory jurisdiction provisions of the Brussels Convention often leads to courts considering the correct methodology. Due to the seemingly growing acceptance of an expansive view of the scope of the Convention, this article looks to the future of forum non conveniens in the United Kingdom. Seemingly, there is sufficient flexibility within the Convention, for its jurisdiction rules to be the sole determinant of jurisdiction.

scholarly journals Time to Revisit Forum Non Conveniens in the UK? Group Josi Reinsurance Co v UGIC

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 705
Author(s):  
Christopher D Bougen
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Question ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Conflicts Of Jurisdiction

There has been much debate in the United Kingdom over the last decade on whether the discretionary doctrine of forum non conveniens is compatible with the mandatory provisions of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction issues in the European Union.  A recent decision of the European Court of Justice has answered affirmatively the question of whether a plaintiff domiciled in a non-Contracting State can invoke the rules of the Covention.  The Court has arguably not settled the more fundamental question of whether the Convention applies to conflicts of jurisdiction between courts of a Contracting State and non-Contracting State.  However, there is evidence of a growing acceptance of an expansive view of the scope of the Convention.  Such a development would bring welcome simplicity to cross-border litigation in the UK. 

Part II The Doctrine of Res Judicata in International Commercial Arbitration, Conclusion

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schaffstein Silja
Keyword(s):  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Conflicts Of Jurisdiction

This chapter concludes that the questions arising from the doctrine of res judicata in international commercial arbitration is only one aspect of a greater problem — the coordination of jurisdictions between arbitral tribunals and other national, international, and supra-national courts and tribunals. The parallel coexistence of these courts and tribunals, coupled with the increasing complexity of international disputes that involve a multitude of closely related parties, contracts, and issues, will inevitably lead to conflicts of jurisdiction. These conflicts not only raise questions of res judicata, but also of the applicability of other jurisdiction-regulating mechanisms, such as lispendens, forum non conveniens, consolidation, and joinder, as well as the availability of anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions of damages for the breach of arbitration agreements.

American and Canadian Civil Actions Alleging Human Rights Violations Abroad by Oil and Gas Companies

2008 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Horlick ◽  
Joe Cyr ◽  
Scott Reynolds ◽  
Andrew Behrman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Government ◽  
Oil And Gas Companies ◽  
Political Question ◽  
The U.S

Under the United States Alien Tort Statute, which permits non-U.S. citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations that are violations of the law of nations, plaintiffs have filed claims against multinational oil and gas corporations for the direct or complicit commission of such violations carried out by the government of the country in which the corporation operated. In addition to exercising jurisdiction over U.S. corporations, U.S. courts have exercised jurisdiction in cases involving non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside the U.S.The exercise of jurisdiction by U.S. courts over non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside of the U.S. raises serious questions as to the jurisdictional foundation on which the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate them rests. Defences that foreign defendants can raise against the exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. courts are an objection to the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction, the act of state doctrine, the political question doctrine, forum non conveniens, and the principle of comity. These defences are bolstered by the support of the defendant’s home government and other governments.

Is There Hope for the Global Environment? A Discussion of Prospective Parent Corporation Liability for a Subsidiary's Environmental Practices Abroad

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-189
Author(s):  
Amelia Tuminaro
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Global Environment ◽  
Environmental Response ◽  
Foreign Subsidiaries ◽  
Environmental Standards ◽  
Environmental Practices ◽  
Prospective Parent ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens

U.S. parent corporations should be held liable for environmental pollution caused by their foreign subsidiaries. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) already holds parent corporations liable in some ways for pollution caused by domestic subsidiaries. Regulations similar to CERCLA's could be applied extraterritorially and would be facilitated by abrogation of two common law principles: limited liability and forum non conveniens. Extraterritorial application of U.S. environmental regulations would greatly enhance transnational corporations' environmental behavior and facilitate just adjudication of plaintiffs' claims against irresponsible companies. Establishing the corporate parent's liability and upholding U.S. environmental standards in such cases would end many current hazardous practices that create pollution in developing countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document