2. Fawcett, J.J., Declining Jurisdiction in Private International Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1995) p. 10;Google ScholarPrince, P., ‘Bhopal, Bougainville and Ok Tedi: Why Australia's Forum Non Conveniens Approach Is Better’, 47 ICLQ (1998) p. 573; and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (hereinafter: Permanent Bureau), ‘Note on the Question of “Forum Non Conveniens” in the Perspective of a Double Convention on Judicial Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Decisions’, Prel. Doc. No. 3, April 1996 (hereinafter: 1996 Prel. Doc. No. 3) pp. 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See Blair, P., ‘The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law’, 29 Colum. L Rev. (1929) p. 1; andGoogle ScholarBickel, A.M., “The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens as Applied in the Federal Courts in Matters of Admiralty’, 35 Cornell Law Quarterly (1949) p. 12.Google Scholar

4. Juenger, F.K., ‘Forum Shopping, Domestic and International’, 63 Tulane L Rev. (1989) p. 553; andGoogle ScholarRobertson, D.W., ‘Forum Non Conveniens in America and England: A Rather Fantastic Fiction’, 103 LQR (1987) pp. 398–399.Google Scholar

5. See Fawcett, , op. cit. n. 2, at p. 10; andGoogle ScholarBeaumont, P.R., ‘A United Kingdom Perspective on the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention’, 24 Brooklyn JIL (1998) p. 82, fn. 13.Google Scholar

6. Cf., Anton, A.E., Private International Law: A Treatise from the Standpoint of Scots law (Edinburgh, Green 1967) pp. 148–149;Google ScholarAnton, A.E. and Beaumont, P.R., Private International Law: A Treatise from the Standpoint of Scots Law (Edinburgh, Green 1990) pp. 213–214;Google ScholarDicey, and Morris, , The Conflict of Laws, 12th edn. (London, Sweet and Maxwell 1993) p. 398;Google ScholarJanis, M.W., ‘The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens and the Bhopal Case’, 34 NILR (1987) p. 193;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMorris, J.H.C., The Conflict of Laws, 4th edn. by McClean, D. (London, Sweet and Maxwell 1993) p. 93;Google ScholarCheshire, and North, Private International Law, 12th edn. (London, Sweet and Maxwell 1992) p. 222;Google ScholarReus, A., ‘Judicial Discretion: A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany’, 16 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law (1994) p. 459;Google ScholarEhrenzweig, A.A., ‘The Transient Rule of Personal Jurisdiction: the “Power” Myth and Forum Conveniens’, 65 yale LJ (1956)p. 305, fn. 116; and Permanent Bureau, 1996 Prel. Doc. No. 3, ANNEX C-D.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Cf., Beaumont, , loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 76.Google Scholar

8. Cf., Dicey, and Morris, , op. cit. n. 6, at p. 398; and Permanent Bureau, 1996 Prel. Doc. No. 3, ANNEX D. In Longworth v. Hope, [1865] 3 M, pp. 1049 and 1058, Lord Deas remarked: ‘Although questions like the present are ranged in our books under the head of forum non competens, the plea is really not that the one forum is incompetent, but that the other forum ought to be preferred.’ In the same case, Lord President McNeill pointed out: ‘The plea has received a wider signification, and it is frequently stated in reference to cases in which the court may consider it more proper for the ends of justice that the parties should seek their remedy in another forum.’Google Scholar

9. Cf., Gibb, A., The International Law of Jurisdiction in England and Scotland (London, Sweet and Maxwell 1926) pp. 212–213; and Reus, loc. cit. n. 6, at p. 459. Whereas in England attachment of movables belonging to a non-resident no longer creates jurisdiction, it still exists in Scotland. Cf,Google Scholarde Winter, L.I., ‘Excessive Jurisdiction in Private International Law’, 17 ICLQ (1968)p. 71; andCrossRefGoogle ScholarNadelmann, K.H., Conflict of Laws: International and Interstate (The Hague, Nijhoff 1972) pp. 324–325.Google Scholar

10. Cf, Anton, op. cit. n. 6, at p. 149.

11. Ibid.

12. For some important earlier cases, see Permanent Bureau, 1996 Prel. Doc. No. 3, ANNEX D, notes 4, 6, and 8. Earlier cases are also discussed in Anton, op. cit. n. 6, at pp. 149–154.

13. See [1926] Sess. Cas. (H.L.), p. 13.

14. Cf., Blair, , loc. cit. n. 3, at p. 20.Google Scholar

15. Ibid.

16. Cf., [1974] AC (The Law Reports-Appeal Cases, Britain), p. 436.

17. Cf., [1978] AC, p. 795 at p. 812.

18. Cf, [1987] AC, pp. 460–488. The fact of the case is as follows: In 1980, a Liberian-owned vessel was chartered to carry a cargo of bulk sulphur from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Indian ports. The shipowners alleged that the cargo was wet when loaded and as a result caused severe corrosion to the vessel. They obtained leave ex parte to serve proceedings on the shippers in Vancouver or elsewhere in Canada on the ground that it was an action to recover damages for breach of a contract governed by English law. The shippers issued a summons under RSC (Rules of the Supreme Court), Ord. 12, r. 8, asking that the ex parte order be discharged on the ground, inter alia, that the case had not been shown to be ‘a proper one for service out of the jurisdiction’ under RSC, Ord. 11, r. 4(2). At hearing of the application, Staughton J., who had already started to hear the trial of a similar action for damages involving the same shippers in respect of another ship, the Cambridgeshire, considered, inter alia, the availability of witnesses, potential experience of counsel and solicitors derived from their participation i n the Cambridgeshire action would lead to savings of time and money. He dismissed the application. On the shippers’ appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed. The shipowners then appealed to the House of Lords and the decision of the Court of Appeal was reversed. Cf., [1987] AC, pp. 460–461.

19. Cf., [1986] 3 WLR, p. 987.

20. Cf., [1987] AC, pp. 477–478.

21. Cf., [1987] AC, p. 478.

22. Cf., [1987] AC, pp. 991–993.

23. Cf., Fawcett, , op. cit. n. 2, at p. 11.Google Scholar

24. Cf., Dicey and Morris, op. cit. n. 6, at pp. 400–402; and Fawcett, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 11–12.

25. Ibid.

26. Cf., Cheshire and North, op. cit. n. 6, at p. 222, fn. 2–7 and the accompanying texts; Fawcett, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 12, fn. 39–43 and the accompanying texts; and Nygh, P.E., Conflict of Laws in Australia, 6th edn. (Sydney, Butterworths 1995) p. 103.Google Scholar

27. Cf., Castel, J.-G., Canadian Conflict of Laws, 3rd edn. (Toronto, Butterworths 1994) pp. 235–236; and Fawcett, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 12.Google Scholar

28. See Tetley, W., ‘Current Developments in Canadian Private International Law’, 78 The Canadian Bar Rev. (1999) p. 163.Google Scholar

29. Cf., Permanent Bureau, 1996 Prel. Doc. No. 3, ANNEX B.

30. 1 SCR (Supreme Court Reports, Canada) 1993, pp. 897–940.

31. Ibid

32. Cf., 165 CLR (Commonwealth Law Reports, Australia) 1988, p. 197.

33. See Nygh, , op. cit. n. 26, at p. 103.Google Scholar

34. Cf., 165 CLR 1988, p. 245.

35. Cf., Brereton, P., ‘Forum Non Conveniens in Australia: A Case Note on Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills’, 40 ICLQ (1991) p. 895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Cf., Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd., 171 CLR 1990, p. 538.

37. Cf., CSR Ltd. v. Cigna Insurance Australia Limited and Ors., which is published in Bulletin of Legal Developments, Issue No. 18, 22 September 1997, p. 210.

38. Cf., Permanent Bureau, 1996 Prel. Doc. No. 3, ANNEX A. See also Nygh, op. cit. n. 26, at pp. 107–108.

39. Cf., Brereton, , loc. cit. n. 35, at p. 895; and Prince, loc. cit. n. 2, at p. 576.Google Scholar

40. Cf., Reus, , loc. cit. n. 6, at p. 460.Google Scholar

41. Cf., Blair, , loc. cit. n. 3, at p. 1.Google Scholar

42. In a 1956 article, Ehrenzweig writes: ‘Slowly and painfully, American courts are developing a common law of forum non conveniens as a corrective of the serious shortcomings in a law of personal jurisdiction based on mere personal service.’ See Ehrenzweig, loc. cit. n. 6, at p. 312.

43. Cf., 330 US (1947) p. 501.

44. Cf., 454 US (1981) p. 235.

45. In that case, Gilbert, a resident of Virginia, brought suit in a federal court in New York against Gulf Oil, a Pennsylvania corporation qualified to do business in both Virginia and New York. The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant, alleging that the defendant negligently delivered gasoline to his Virginia warehouse tanks and pumps causing an explosion and fire. The District Court's jurisdiction was solely based on diversity of citizenship. As all the events giving rise to litigation had happened in Virginia, the New York District Court applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court in turn reversed the Appellate Court's decision. See 330 US (1947) pp. 502–503.

46. See 330 US (1947) p. 508.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. See 330 US (1947) p. 509. For a detailed analysis of the private/public interests approach, see Reynold, W.L., ‘The Proper Forum for a Suit: Transnational Forum Non Conveniens and Counter – Suit Injunction in the Federal Courts’, 70 Tex. L Rev. (1992) pp. 1672–1683.Google Scholar

50. See 330 US (1947) p. 507.

51. Cf., Gilbert, 330 US (1947) p. 508.

52. Cf., Robertson, , loc. cit. n. 4, at pp. 398 and 412.Google Scholar

53. Cf., Robertson, , loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 401.Google Scholar

54. Para. 1404(a) USCA (United States Code Annotated) provides: ‘For the conveniens of parties and witness, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.’ For more information about it, see Scoles, E.F. and Hay, P., Conflict of Laws, 2nd edn. (St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing Co. 1992) pp. 382–384.Google Scholar

55. Cf., Born, G.B. and Westin, D., International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, 2nd edn. (Deventer, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers 1992) p. 277Google Scholar; and Robertson, , loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 402.Google Scholar

56. The facts of the case are as follows: In 1976, a small commercial aircraft crashed in Scotland. The pilot and all five passengers were killed. The decedents were all Scottish citizens and residents. The wrongful death actions brought against both Piper Aircraft Company, the Pennsylvania manufacturer of the aircraft, and Hartzell Propeller Inc., the Ohio manufacturer of the propeller, were eventually transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Both defendants moved to dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens. Relying on the balancing test of private/public interest factors developed in Gilbert, the District Court granted the motions. The Appellate Court reversed, holding, inter alia, that ‘dismissal is never appropriate where the law of the alternative forum is less favorable to plaintiff’. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the District Court. See 454 US (1981) p. 235; and Robertson, , loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 402.Google Scholar

57. See 454 US (1981) pp. 253–256.

58. Ibid. p. 250.

59. Ibid. p. 255.

60. Ibid. pp. 255–256.

61. See 928 F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1996) p. 374. In this case, five Greek nationals brought a lawsuit against Marika Maritime Corp., a Liberian corporation, which owned the vessel in which crew members of the vessel who were the plaintiffs’ relatives died. Alleging that the defendant's vessel was owned and controlled from the New York area by Peter Pappas, a Connecticut resident, the plaintiffs brought this suit in New York, seeking to recover under the Death on the High Seas Act. The plaintiffs argued that Pappas was an unscrupulous operator who negligently failed to keep the vessel in good repair and who was hiding behind the shield of a collective bargaining agreement that prohibited recourse to courts of countries other than Greece.

62. Cf., 928 F. Supp., p. 378.

63. Cf., supra n. 19.

64. In the US case of Piper, it was also determined that the forum's law would govern the liability issue. Cf., Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co., 630 F. 2d (3d Cir. 1980) pp. 149 and 167–171.

65. Cf., Stein, A.R., ‘Forum Non Conveniens and the Redundancy of Court-Access Doctrine’, 133 University of Pennsylvania L Rev. (1985) p. 782.Google Scholar

66. For a detailed discussion of the relation between comity and forum non conveniens, see Pearce, B., ‘The Comity Doctrine as a Barrier to Judicial Jurisdiction: A U.S.-E.U. Comparison’, 30 Stanford JIL (1994) p. 551.Google Scholar According to this commentator, ‘the doctrine of forum non conveniens is a significant relative of the comity doctrine in inpersonam jurisdiction. In the United States, forum non conveniens, like comity itself, is a federal common-law doctrine without any statutory basis'. Ibid., at p. 552.

67. Cf., for example, Piper, 454 US (1981) p. 250; De Mateos v. Texaco, Inc., 562 F. 2d (3d Cir. 1977) p. 902 In Re Union Carbide Gas Plant Disaster, 634 F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1986) pp. 862–866. See also Robertson, loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 407, and Robertson, D.W., ‘The Federal Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens: “An Object Lesson in Uncontrolled Discretion”’, 29 Texas ILJ (1994) p. 372; andGoogle ScholarDuval-Major, J., ‘One-Way Ticket Home: The Federal Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens and the International Plaintiff, 77 Cornell L Rev. (1992) p. 674.Google Scholar

68. Cf., Reynolds, W., ‘The Proper Forum for a Suit: Transnational Forum Non Conveniens and Counter-Suit Injunctions in the Federal Courts’, 70 Tex. L Rev. (1992) p. 1714.Google Scholar

69. In The A bidin Dover, [ 1984] 1 AC 398, p. 411, Lord Diplock stated with satisfaction that ‘judicial chauvinism has been replaced by judicial comity’. See also Amin Rasheed, [1984] AC, p. 65.

70. For more information, see Zhenjie, Hu, Chinese Perspectives on International Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Contractual Matters (Zurich, Schulthess 1999) pp. 20–23.Google Scholar

71. Cf., supra section 2.2.2.

72. Cf., supra section 2.2.1.

73. Cf., supra sections 2.2. and 2.3.

74. Cf., supra sections 2.2. and 2.3.

75. See Fawcett, , op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

76. Cf., Piper, 454 US (1981) p. 255; and supra section 2.3.2.

77. Cf., supra sections 2.2 and 2.3.

78. Ibid.

79. This situation may account for the use of anti-suit injunctions, which are used in the common law jurisdictions. For a deeper analysis, see Zhenjie, Hu, op. cit. n. 70, at p. 244.Google Scholar

80. Some common law lawyers argue that this would not happen because if a court is not sure that the ‘more appropriate forum’ would accept a case, the court would not dismiss it. This is not true. For instance, in the notorious Bhopal case, the Indian government and Supreme Court had expressed their unwillingness to deal with the case, but the US court still dismissed it on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Cf., infra section 3.3.3. Even if this is true in some countries, the approach cannot be expected to function well. For instance, how can the forum get to know that the ‘more appropriate forum’ would entertain the case which this forum is reluctant to hear? It seems that it is improper for the forum to directly communicate the other and discuss the issue with it. If this forum just waits for the entertainment of the case by the ‘more appropriate forum’, it will substantially delay the adjudication of the case.

81. See Weintraub, R.J., ‘International Litigation and Forum Non Conveniens’, 29 Tex. ILJ (1994) p. 330.Google Scholar

82. One recent US case again highlights the inconsistent treatment of motions to dismiss or to stay action in reference to foreign proceedings. See Dragon Capity Partners L.P. v. Merrill Lynch Capital Services Inc., 949 F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1997) p. 1123. See also Legum, B., ed., ‘International Legal Developments in Review: 1997 – International Litigation’, 32 The International Lawyer (1998) pp. 224–225.Google Scholar

83. In Macedo v. Boeing Co., the defendant's airplane crashed in Portugal, killing 132 persons and injuring 32 others. The ensuing litigation involved 157 plaintiffs, of whom 6 were Americans. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the trial judge had abused his discretion in dismissing this case for forum non conveniens. On the other hand, in Pain v. United Technologies Corp., the American-made aircraft crashed in the North Sea, killing 5 persons, one of whom was an American. The District of Columbia Circuit held that the forum non conveniens dismissal of the case was appropriate. For more details, see Robertson, (1994), loc. cit. n. 67, at p. 363.Google Scholar

84. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals made and distributed the drug Bendectin, which injured hundreds of persons in many countries. Merrell-Dow has its corporate headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. When Canadian victims sued it in the Northern District of Ohio, the defendant's forum non conveniens motion was denied. When British victims sued it in the Southern District of Ohio, the case was dismissed for forum non conveniens! See Robertson, (1994), loc. cit. n. 67, at p. 363.Google Scholar

85. Cf., supra section 2.3.1.

86. Robertson, , loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 414Google Scholar; Duval-Major, , loc. cit. n. 67, at p. 676;Google Scholar and Slater, A.G., ‘Forum Non Conveniens: A View From the Shop Floor’, 104 LQR (1988) p. 554.Google Scholar

87. Cf., Spiliada, [1986] 3 WLR, p. 975 (quoting Lord Templeman).

88. In Lacey v. Essna Aircraft, a personal injury case, Mr. Lacey, labored toward a hearing on the merits of his claim for almost seven years since his injury. In this case, the plaintiff was injured in 1985Google Scholar. In 1992, the federal district court of the US decided in the end that discovery can go forward in the US court. The case of Mizodami Bros. of Ariz., Inc. v. Baychem Corp. is another example. When it was finally over in 1986, thirteen years had passed since the injury occurred. See Robertson, , loc. cit. n. 4, at pp. 364–366.Google Scholar

89. Cf., Green, L., ‘Jury Trial and Mr. Justice Black’, 65 Yale LJ (1956) p. 494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. See, for instance, Casad, R.C., ‘Jurisdiction in Civil Actions at the End of the Twentieth Century: Forum Conveniens and Forum Non Conveniens’, 7 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law (1999) pp. 106–107.Google Scholar

91. Cf., Blair, , loc. cit. n. 3, at p. 1.Google Scholar

92. An Australian scholar has pointed out: ‘But to allow workload – an administrative factor – to influence the forum non conveniens doctrine undermines its legal basis. The US practice of using docket congestion to dismiss a foreign plaintiff's claim seems particularly inappropriate.’ See Prince, , loc. cit. n. 2, at p. 585.Google Scholar

93. Cf., Robertson, , loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 407.Google Scholar

94. Cf., Dow Chem. Co. v. Castro Alfaro (Tex. 1990), 786 SW 2d, pp. 674 and 686.

95. For more information, see Robertson, (1994), loc. cit. n. 67, at pp. 373–375.Google Scholar

96. Cf., Prince, , loc. cit. n. 2, at p. 577.Google Scholar

97. Cf., supra sections 2.1 and 2.2.

98. Cf., 326 US (1945) p. 310.

99. Cf., Stein, , loc. cit. n. 65, at p. 801Google Scholar, and Juenger, , loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 557.Google Scholar

100. Cf., Stein, , loc. cit. n. 65, at pp. 801–802.Google Scholar

101. Cf., ‘The Yale Law Journal, Comment: Forum Non Conveniens, A New Federal Doctrine’, 56 Yale LJ( 1949) p. 1234.Google Scholar

102. See Litman, H., ‘Comment: Considerations of Choice of Law in the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens’, 74 California L Rev. (1986) p. 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

103. Cf., Robertson, (1994), loc. cit. n. 67, at pp. 368–369.Google Scholar

104. See Robertson, loc. cit. n. 4, the title of the article.

105. See Muchlinski, P. T., ‘The Bhopal Case: Controlling Ultrahazardous Industrial Activities Undertaken by Foreign Investors’, 50 MLR (1987) pp. 579–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

106. See Prince, loc. cit. n. 2, at p. 574.

107. For the courts of the US, Britain and Canada, anti-suit injunctions are another weapon to ensure that the suits which they want to be brought in them will not be brought in a foreign court. Cf., Hu Zhenjie, op. cit. n. 70, at pp. 250–257.

108. For some cases of this kind, see Duval-Major, loc. cit. n. 67, at p. 650, fn 5 and at p. 670, fn. 162.

109. For a detailed discussion of the outcome determinative effect of dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens, see Duval-Major, loc. cit. n. 67, at pp. 671–672; and Robertson, loc. cit. n. 4, at pp. 417–421.

110. See supra section 2.3.2.

111. Cf., Robertson, loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 405; and Verheul, J.P., ‘The Forum (Non) Conveniens in England and Dutch Law and Under Some International Conventions’, 35 ICLQ (1986) p. 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

112. Cf., Piper, 454 US (1981)pp. 260–261.

113. For instance, when discussing the annual renewal of China's Most-Favored-Nation status, the US Congress and government always make its granting subject to some political conditions amongst which human rights figured prominently. Cf., Van der Geest, W., ‘Bringing China into the Concert of Nations: An Analysis of Its Accession to the WTO’, 32 Journal of World Trade (1998) p. 112; and Duval-Major, loc. cit. n. 67, at fh. 197 and the accompanying text.Google Scholar

114. For details of the case, see Janis, loc. cit. n. 6, at pp. 198–203; and Robertson (1994), loc. cit. n. 67, at pp. 372–375.

115. Cf., Robertson, (1994)Google Scholar, loc. cit. n. 67, at fh. 186 and the accompanying text.

116. Cf., Duval-Major, , loc. cit. n. 67, at p. 675.Google Scholar

117. Cf., Zhenjie, Hu, op. cit. n. 70, at pp. 250–256.Google Scholar

118. Cf., Robertson, (1994), loc. cit. n. 67, at p. 373,Google Scholar fn. 165 and the accompanying text.

119. Janis, , loc. cit. n. 6, at pp. 199–203;Google ScholarPrince, , loc. cit. n. 2, at p. 577;Google Scholar and Robertson (1994), loc. cit. n. 67, at p. 373.

120. Ibid.

121. Cf., Robertson, (1994), loc. cit. n. 67, at p. 368.Google Scholar

122. For details, see Hu Zhenjie, op. cit. n. 70, at p. 245.

123. Cf., Robertson, (1994), loc. cit. n. 67, at p. 370.Google Scholar

124. Cf., In Re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India, 684 F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1986) pp. 842 and 867.

125. Some US scholars have criticized this principle, too. Cf., for instance, Duval-Major, loc. cit. n. 67, at p. 651; Hartman, K.L., ‘Note: Forum Non Conveniens and Foreign Plaintiffs in the Federal Courts’, 69 Georgia LJ (1981) p. 1257; andGoogle ScholarStevenson, A.J., ‘Forum Non Conveniens and Equal Access Under Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Treaties: A Foreign Plaintiff's Rights’, 13 Hastings International and Comparative L Rev. (1990) p. 267.Google Scholar

126. Cf., supra section 2.3.2.

127. Cf., supra section 2.1.

128. See Art. 3 of Brussels and Lugano Conventions.

129. See Permanent Bureau, 1996 Prel. Doc. No. 3, p. 4. The present author does not agree to this opinion. In choosing jurisdictional basis, the considerations should be focused on the objective contacts between the forum and the case. If the plaintiffs home forum has very close connection with the case, it cannot be deemed exorbitant.

130. Cf., 704 F. Supp. (W.D.VIR. 1989) p. 673.

131. Alexander Bickel's 1949 study of the use of forum non conveniens in admiralty concluded that limits on forum shopping should be addressed through formal venue rules, rather than by permitting the discretionary circumvention of venue rules by trial judges applying the forum non conveniens doctrine. See Bickel, , loc. cit. n. 3, at pp. 16–19Google Scholar and 26. Braucher wrote that the ‘doctrine is “amorphous” and serves inconsistent ends’. see Braucher, R., ‘The Inconvenient Federal Forum’, 60 Harv. L Rev. (1947) p. 930. Currie contended that the doctrine is ‘notoriously complex and uncertain’, resulting in ‘appalling’ delays in selecting the appropriate forum. SeeCrossRefGoogle ScholarCurrie, B., ‘Change of Venue and the Conflict of Laws’, 22 University of Chicago L Rev. (1955) p. 416. Recently, a commentator has suggested that the forum non conveniens principle be abolished in US human rights litigation.SeeGoogle ScholarBoyd, K.L., ‘The Inconveniens of Victims: Abolishing Forum Non Conveniens in US Human Rights Litigation’, 39 Virginia JIL (1998) pp. 86–86.Google Scholar

132. Beaumont takes the same view. See Beaumont, , loc. cit. n. 5, at pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

133. He writes: ‘Where and so long as personal jurisdiction was limited to the convenient forum, there was no need, and indeed no room, for a doctrine of forum non conveniens.’ See Ehrenzweig, , loc. cit. n. 6, at p. 305.Google Scholar

134. Cf., Juenger, , loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 560;Google ScholarLowenfeld, A.F., ‘Forum Shopping, Antisuit Injunctions, Negative Declarations, and Related Tools of International Litgation’, 91 AJIL (1997) p. 321;CrossRefGoogle ScholarEllencrig, H.A., ‘Expanding Personal Jurisdiction over Foreign Defendants: A Response to Omni Capital International v. Gudolf Wolff & Co.’, 24 California Western ILJ (1994) p. 380, fn. 116; andGoogle ScholarBorn, G.B., ‘Reflections on Judicial Jurisdiction in International Cases’, 17 The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law (1987) pp. 3–5. For more information concerning these matters, seeGoogle ScholarDorward, D.J., ‘The Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine and the Judicial Protection of Multinational Corporations from Forum Shopping Plaintiffs’, 19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law (1998) pp. 146–150.Google Scholar

135. Cf., Permanent Bureau, 1996 Prel. Doc. No. 3, p. 2.

136. Cf., for instance, Lowenfeld, , loc. cit. n. 134, at pp. 322–324.Google Scholar

137. The real reason for the doctrine's exclusion from the Brussels Convention is said to be the fear that to allow such an open-endedjurisdictional discretion would threaten to disrupt the proper functioning of the overall Convention system, whereunder judgment-courts are bound to apply fixed, known jurisdiction grounds and recognition-courts are thereby enabled to grant fast and effective recognition and enforcement without requiring to review the jurisdiction of the court of origin. Cf., Kaye, P., ‘The EEC Judgments Convention and the Outer World: Goodbye to Forum Non Conveniens?’, The Journal of Business Law (1992) p. 49.Google Scholar

138. Cf., Permanent Bureau, 1996 Prel. Doc. No. 3, p. 4.

139. Cf., Permanent Bureau, 1996 Prel. Doc. No. 3, p. 2.

140. Cf., Permanent Bureau, ‘Synthesis of the Work of the Special Commission of March 1998 on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters’, drawn by Catherine Kessedjian, 1998 Prel. Doc. No. 9, p. 43, para. 101.

141. Cf., Art. 22(1) of the draft Convention, which was adopted by the Special Commission on 30 October 1999. It provides: ‘In exceptional circumstances, when the jurisdiction of the court seised is not founded on an exclusive choice of court agreement valid under Article 4, or on Articles 7, 8 or 12, the court may, on application by a party, suspend its proceedings if in that case it is clearly inappropriate for that court to exercise jurisdiction and if a court of another State has jurisdiction and is clearly more appropriate to resolve the dispute. Such application must be made no later than at the time of the first defence on the merits.’

142. A US commentator has attempted to justify the inclusion of the doctrine in the future Hague Judgment Convention. He argues: ‘… no signatory state should be required to apply the doctrine in its courts. Beyond that, it would seem advantageous to all signatory states that a convention which is likely to be more adventurous than the Brussels and Lugano Conventions accommodate such a safety valve in those states whose legal traditions permit it.’ see Burbank, S.B., ‘Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: End of the Century or Beginning of the Mellennium?’, 7 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law (1999) p. 122. This argument is not convincing: if the ‘safety valve’ can be used only by those few states whose legal traditions permit it, how can it be ‘advantageous to all signatory states'? He might intend to mean that if one of those few states dismiss a case on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the other contracting states may be ‘honored’ to have the opportunity to hear that case. But judicial history has demonstrated that the other countries are usually unwilling to accept that kind of cases. For instance, the Bhopal which the Americans ‘do not want brought here’ was not welcome by the Indians.Google Scholar

143. Cf., Nygh, , op. cit. n. 26, at p. 103;Google Scholar and Prof. Beaumont writes that‘… we believe in discretion in conflicts of jurisdiction but have come to live with the certainty of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions.’ See Beaumont, loc. cit. n. 5, at p. 109.