FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W219440069> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W219440069 startingPage "385" @default.
• W219440069 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION My goal in this article is to offer some reflections on jurisdictional conflict stimulated by Professor Posch (1) and on jurisdictional equilibration stimulated by Professor Silberman. (2) Thus, having brought to bear on the understanding of jurisdictional conflict an account of the etiology and current dilemmas of American jurisdictional jurisprudence, I will assess the roles and prospects of two jurisdictional equilibration devices--the Latin twins, forum non conveniens and lis pendens--in resolving such conflict, with special attention to international business disputes. II. JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICT Professor Posch's article lays firmly at the door of disagreements about appropriate rules of adjudicatory jurisdiction the difficulties that delegates to the Hague Conference have experienced in crafting a global convention on jurisdiction and judgments. (3) In his view, certain grounds of jurisdiction accepted in the United States but regarded as exorbitant under the Brussels Convention and its replacement regulation, combined with the American Rule on cost (including attorney's fee) shifting, the availability of contingency fee representation, and the right to jury trial in civil cases, prompt overreaching by entrepreneurial American plaintiffs lawyers and risk aversion in foreign defendants. The latter are therefore often led either to settle rather than to litigate once a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States, or to anticipate and try to avoid that dilemma through a forum-selection (including an arbitration) clause. According to this account, the in jurisdictional conceptions that have prevented agreement at The Hague overwhelm other in the rules and practices applicable in the United States and the E.U. countries that Professor Posch discusses, including regarding forum-selection clauses and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. (4) One need not agree with Professor Posch's account to find interesting the conclusion that what he calls sociological differences are probably more important than legal to an understanding of the jurisdictional conflict he describes. For present purposes, I would highlight one difference that might be so conceived and that has obvious legal impact. In many developed countries in the western world, the State directly affords or provides administrative or other mechanisms that afford--assistance to those who have been injured to a far greater degree than does the United States, where, as a result, litigation picks up the slack. The same is true of mechanisms to vindicate important regulatory interests. These reflect, in turn, fundamental in attitudes toward the proper role of the State and of private initiative in ordering social life, with predictable effects on general attitudes toward not only litigation but also the status quo and how, if at all, it should be altered. (5) However regrettable the contingency fee, the American Rule on cost-shifting, and the institution of the jury trial in civil cases may appear to a European, they are logical incidents of a system that distrusts government and leans heavily on private litigation to compensate for injury and to enforce important social norms, but that does not provide legal aid that is worthy of the name. (6) It is not only the self-interest of entrepreneurial American plaintiffs lawyers that prompts resistance to attempts to reduce the availability of litigation forums in the United States when an American alleges injury for which a foreign enterprise may be legally responsible or where the activities of that foreign enterprise are alleged to trigger an American regulatory interest. Forced to pursue vindication thousands of miles from home, and without alternative (that is, non-litigation) means of vindication, our putative American plaintiff might lose not only favorable substantive law but that which experience suggests may be more important in many cases, to wit, the ability to secure representation and to develop evidence necessary to establish liability (discovery). …" @default.
• W219440069 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W219440069 creator A5025441533 @default.
• W219440069 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W219440069 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W219440069 title "Jurisdictional Conflict and Jurisdictional Equilibration: Paths to a Via Media?" @default.
• W219440069 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W219440069 type Work @default.
• W219440069 sameAs 219440069 @default.
• W219440069 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W219440069 countsByYear W2194400692013 @default.
• W219440069 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W219440069 hasAuthorship W219440069A5025441533 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C160151201 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C2776243541 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C2780608745 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C2780858371 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C538833194 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C62100270 @default.
• W219440069 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C144024400 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C160151201 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C17744445 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C199539241 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C2776119841 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C2776243541 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C2776949292 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C2780608745 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C2780858371 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C538833194 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C62100270 @default.
• W219440069 hasConceptScore W219440069C97460637 @default.
• W219440069 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W219440069 hasLocation W2194400691 @default.
• W219440069 hasOpenAccess W219440069 @default.
• W219440069 hasPrimaryLocation W2194400691 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W1590032135 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W2115418596 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W2183046385 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W2253734787 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W2268924890 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W234434005 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W275806633 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W280424208 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W283884956 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W288320702 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W3123307289 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W3124479003 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W3124959118 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W3125714046 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W3125865739 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W412221109 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W64545260 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W97455037 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W2603682622 @default.
• W219440069 hasRelatedWork W3121818251 @default.
• W219440069 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W219440069 isParatext "false" @default.
• W219440069 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W219440069 magId "219440069" @default.
• W219440069 workType "article" @default.