Ronald A. Brand, Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg Professor and Director for the University of Pittsburgh School of Law’s Center for International Legal Education has published a fascinating article entitled, Challenges to Forum Non Conveniens, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (JILP), Vol. 45, No. 3, 2013; U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-21. In his paper, Professor Brand discusses forum shopping when enforcing foreign arbitral and other awards.
Here is the abstract:
This paper was originally prepared for a Panel on Regulating Forum Shopping: Courts’ Use of Forum Non Conveniens in Transnational Litigation at the 18th Annual Herbert Rubin and Justice Rose Luttan Rubin International Law Symposium: Tug of War: The Tension Between Regulation and International Cooperation, held at New York University School of Law, October 25, 2012. The doctrines of forum non conveniens and lis alibi pendens have marked a significant difference in approach to parallel litigation in the common law and civil law worlds, respectively. The forum non conveniens doctrine has recently taken a beating. This has come (1) in its UK form as a result of decisions of the European Court of Justice, (2) through a lack of uniformity of application throughout the common law world, (3) as a result of legislation and litigation in Latin American countries, and (4) through the misapplication of the forum non conveniens doctrine in cases brought to recognize and enforce foreign arbitration awards. This article reviews those challenges, and considers the compromise reached in 2001 at the Hague Conference on Private International Law when that body was considering a general convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. It concludes with thoughts on the importance of remembering that compromise and the promise it holds for bringing legal system approaches to parallel litigation closer together.
This and other scholarly articles authored by Professor Brand may be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network.
Related Posts
Reviewing the Use of “Soft Law” in Investment Arbitration
How the Supreme Court’s Misconstruction of the FAA Has Affected Consumers
The Agreement to Arbitrate and the ‘Applicable Law’
International Arbitration of Patent Claims
The Impact of Investment Arbitration on Investment Treaty Design: Myth Versus Reality
Legislative Approaches to Trust Arbitration in the United States
