Doctrine Of Forum Non Conveniens Research Articles

Forum Non Conveniens in China: From Judicial Practice to Law

Abstract Chinese courts have applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens since the 1990s. The Chinese Supreme Court has confirmed the judicial practice in its judicial interpretations. However, the doctrine that has actually been engaged in the Chinese courts is based on the inconvenience approach to avoid inconvenience to Chinese courts. Recently, the newly amended Chinese Civil Procedure Law formally enacted this doctrine in a different way. The new doctrine of forum non conveniens considers the factor of inconvenience to the parties, removes the condition of involvement of Chinese parties’ interests, and provides procedural remedies after dismissing actions. This new doctrine of forum non conveniens in Chinese law comes close to the doctrine of forum non conveniens in common law, which is based on an approach for the interests of all parties. This article reviews the development of the Chinese doctrine of forum non conveniens and assesses the conditions under the doctrine in Chinese law. It is suggested that the new Chinese doctrine of forum non conveniens can be improved further by removing the inconvenience to the Chinese courts and clarifying the consideration of the interests of all parties.

The Promotion of Access to Justice through the Constitutional Development of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

South African jurisdictional principles governing cross-border litigation have seen minor development in recent years and as such, remained feudal and anachronistic. It is essential for South African courts to be equipped with the necessary jurisdictional powers to assume and exercise jurisdiction in disputes concerning its own citizens against foreign multinational corporations. This article aims to propose a way forward, centred around the constitutional reform of the South African doctrine of forum non conveniens, in a manner that advances sustainable and equitable legal development, while also simultaneously promoting the principle of transformative constitutionalism and the right of access to courts. To produce sustainable and viable solutions, a comparative analysis of both the principles of private international law and the proposed reform of the doctrine in comparable jurisdictions is undertaken. The effect of any associated international agreements and instruments applicable to these jurisdictions that may have an impact on or insight into the way forward is also examined. It is hoped that this article will result in a meaningful contribution to the discourse on the development of the jurisdictional principles of South African law, to achieve access to justice for all within Southern Africa and the African continent as a whole.

국제재판관할에 관한 국제사법 개정 - 전체 개관

The work introducing the detailed rules of international adjudicatory jurisdiction (“jurisdictional rules”) by amending the 2001 Private International Law Act of Korea (“Former PILA”) finally came to fruition; the Private International Law Amendment Act was promulgated on January 4, 2022, and the amended Private International Law Act of Korea (“New PILA”) entered into force on July 5, 2022. The Former PILA had only three articles on jurisdictional rules, i.e., Article 2 (declaring the general principles of international jurisdiction) and Articles 27 and 28 (establishing the protective jurisdictional rules to protect consumers and employees, the socio-economically weaker parties). There are now thirty-six articles on jurisdictional rules. The general part is set forth in Chapter 1, Section 2 of the New PILA, and special parts are set forth for various legal relations in the first section of each chapter of the New PILA, most of which are rules on special jurisdiction. As its general part, the New PILA includes general principles of international jurisdiction and jurisdictional rules on general jurisdiction, place of office (business office) and business activities, location of property, related cases and counterclaims, jurisdiction agreements, jurisdiction based upon appearance, exclusive jurisdiction, lis pendens, non-exercise of international jurisdiction, exclusion of application, jurisdiction on preservation orders and non-contentious matters. As its special parts, each chapter of the New PILA includes jurisdictional rules on persons (Chapter 2), intellectual property rights (Chapter 5), claims (Chapter 6), family matters (Chapter 7), inheritance (Chapter 8), bills of exchange, promissory notes and checks (Chapter 9) and maritime commerce (Chapter 10).
 By stipulating, for the first time in Korea’s history, the jurisdictional rules in the New PILA, the international jurisdiction law of Korea entered a new era. On the one hand, the New PILA secures legal certainty and enhances predictability of the courts and the parties by specifying the detailed jurisdictional rules. On the other hand, jurisdictional justice is guaranteed in individual cases through the principle of lis pendens and non-exercise of international jurisdiction under exceptional circumstances (the latter is an improvement of the special circumstances theory of the Supreme Court precedents and was influenced by the doctrine of forum non conveniens of the common law jurisdicitons) by giving certain limited discretion to the courts. If the New PILA is to be successful, the Korean courts must correctly understand the gist of the jurisdictional rules of the New PILA and use their discretion appropriately in order to achieve the purpose of the New PILA. The author looks forward to a collection of excellent Korean courts precedents faithful to the New PILA in the future. The structure of the New PILA is noteworthy in that the jurisdictional rules and the choice of law rules, in each chapter, stand side by side like two wings, while putting the detailed detailed jurisdictional rules in the New PILA. Korea’s transition to a two-wing system, from the Former PILA which, like Germany, only contained choice of law rules, is noteworthy not only from the Korean point of view, but also from a comparative private international law perspective. An important reason for the transition is that the jurisdictional rules and the choice of law rules are closely related, and the decision to transit was influenced by the attitudes of the common law jurisdicitons, the Swiss Private International Law Act, and the Hague Conference on Private International Law, all of which have a broad understanding of private international law not limited to choice of law rules.

A return to the doctrine of forum non conveniens after Brexit and the implications for corporate accountability

On 1 January 2021, the European Union’s uniform laws on jurisdiction in cross-border disputes ceased to have effect within the United Kingdom. Instead, the rules governing jurisdiction are now found within the Hague Convention 2005 where there is an exclusive choice of court agreement and revert to domestic law where there is not. Consequently, the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies to more jurisdictional issues. This article analyses the impact forum non conveniens may have on victims of human rights abuses linked to multinational enterprises and considers three possible alternatives to the forum non conveniens doctrine, including (i) the vexatious-and-oppressive test, (ii) the Australian clearly inappropriate forum test, and (iii) Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The author concludes that while the English courts are unlikely to depart from the forum non conveniens doctrine, legislative intervention may be needed to ensure England and Wales’ compliance with its commitment to continue to ensure access to remedies for those injured by the overseas activities of English and Welsh-domiciled MNEs as required by the United Nation’s non-binding General Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention

In 1992, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) commenced the Judgments Project with the aim of delivering a convention harmonising rules of jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Despite the ambition and promise the project held, the first major attempt at delivering a convention, the 2001 Interim Text, was unsuccessful after it failed to gain consensus among the Conference’s Member States. The HCCH scaled back the Judgments Project to focus work on the 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. However, the issue of jurisdiction has not been forgotten, with the Hague having recently established a Working Group to begin drafting provisions for a fresh attempt at the subject which hopefully will succeed where the Interim Text did not. The aim of this article is to explore the issue of how the proposed convention shall address conflicts of jurisdiction in international litigation. A conflict of jurisdiction will typically arise where the same proceedings, or related ones, come before the courts of several fora, or in one forum which considers another forum to be better placed to adjudicate the dispute. One solution to such conflicts is the, originally Scottish, doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction on the basis that the appropriate forum for the trial is abroad or the local forum is inappropriate. This article argues for the inclusion of a version of forum non conveniens in the proposed jurisdiction convention to settle these conflicts when they arise. However, as there are many interpretations of what makes one forum more or less appropriate to hear a case than another, this article tackles the issue of how such a principle could be drafted to achieve consensus at the Hague Conference. Much of this analysis is based on the original 2001 Interim Text, and upon more modern cross-border agreements which utilise forum non conveniens.

Discretion in the exercise of jurisdiction in conflict cases in Nigeria

This article analyses the jurisprudence of discretionary jurisdiction in conflicts cases in Nigeria to interrogate the considerations of theory and practical policy (or lack thereof) that, in the authors’ view, have influenced the development of the relevant law and procedure. The analysis includes an assessment of whether too much or too little weight has been given to some theories or policies. The article discusses discretionary jurisdiction in three main situations: (1) where the defendant is outside the jurisdiction of the forum court and, therefore, must be served ex juris; (2) when the court is invited to decline jurisdiction based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens; and (3) when there are parallel proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. A key finding is that discretionary jurisdiction in Nigeria is highly under-theorised in the jurisprudence. Nigerian intellectuals have, for their part, not given the subject adequate consideration. There is, therefore, a dearth of literature to draw on. The article sifts through the rules of court and court decisions to discover the theoretical and practical considerations for the courts’ exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in the three situations mentioned.

Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group: Implications of the UK High Court’s Decision

The High Court of England and Wales in its November 2020 judgment in Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group1 (BHP) declined jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by victims of the Fundão Dam collapse in Brazil on the grounds of abuse of process. The decision raises serious questions about the Court’s willingness to vindicate the fair trial rights of victims of human rights abuses linked to multinational enterprises (MNEs). In this judgment, Turner J also made obiter comments on the possibility of staying the case on application of Article 34 of the Recast Brussels Regulation (Recast Regulation),2 the doctrine of forum non conveniens (FNC), and/or the Court’s case management discretion.

Transnational Law, Domestic Courts, and Global Governance

This working paper, which will not be submitted for publication, has been replaced by two separate articles: (1) Domestic Courts and Global Governance, 84 Tulane Law Review 67 (2009), which presents a substantially revised version of the conceptual and methodological argument; and (2) The Evolving Forum Shopping System, 96 Cornell Law Review (forthcoming), which contains an empirical analysis of forum non conveniens decisionmaking. If citing, please cite these new versions. Please do not cite this older working paper without the author’s permission.] Domestic courts are global governors. In the United States federal courts alone, thousands of disputes arising out of activity are heard each year. Substantively, the decisions of courts in these cases allocate resources among actors. Jurisdictionally, they allocate authority among sovereign states. When domestic courts publish their litigation decisions, they not only directly affect the litigants; they also provide information about how they are likely to decide similar cases in the future, information that can indirectly influence the strategic behavior of actors beyond a particular dispute. Yet the of activity by domestic courts - which I refer to as transnational judicial governance - has received little scholarly attention, even though legal scholars and political scientists have long appreciated the role of domestic courts in the of domestic activity, and are increasingly interested in the role of international courts in the of both domestic and international activity. As a result, we have a very limited understanding of how domestic courts behave as global governors, and why they govern the way they do. In this paper, I propose a governance-oriented approach for analyzing law aimed at improving our understanding of judicial governance. In Part I, I clarify the concept of judicial by exploring the global implications of judicial decisionmaking in litigation, and I attempt to demonstrate the importance of judicial as a distinct object of study. Part II describes the governance-oriented approach, including its focus on law in action and on the broad implications of domestic court decisionmaking for activity, and notes its affinities with legal realism and the New Haven school of international law. Part III illustrates the governance-oriented approach by applying it to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, using an original dataset of over 200 forum non conveniens decisions made by U.S. district court judges to evaluate this example of judicial according to the rule-of-law values of predictability and impartiality. Part IV concludes by using Part III's findings to asses whether domestic courts can effectively foster rule of law.

Politics and the Rule of Law in Transnational Judicial Governance: The Case of Forum Non Conveniens

Domestic courts play an important role in the regulation of economic activity, which I refer to as transnational judicial governance. However, because judicial politics scholars have focused primarily on matters of domestic policy and international relations scholars have virtually ignored domestic legal institutions, we have very little knowledge about how domestic courts behave as global governors and why. In particular, are the determinants of domestic court decisionmaking in judicial governance primarily political, as leading theories of judicial decisionmaking and international relations would suggest? Or, given the distinct nature of domestic courts as legal institutions, is judicial governance instead based on the rule of law? To answer this question, this paper focuses on one important example of judicial governance decisionmaking: the choice between the assertion of domestic adjudicative authority and deference to foreign adjudicative authority over activity based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Drawing on theories of judicial decisionmaking, international relations, private international law, and bounded rationality, and using statistical and qualitative analysis of an original dataset of over 200 forum non conveniens decisions in U.S. district courts, I test a series of hypotheses about the political and rule-of-law factors that determine the choice between domestic and foreign adjudicative authority. I find that rule-of-law factors predominate. Although U.S. district court judges are more likely to defer to foreign governance authority if the foreign state is a liberal democracy, Republican judges are no less likely than Democratic judges to defer to foreign governance authority; and the most important factor appears to be the use of a particular decisionmaking shortcut or heuristic that allows judges to make legally competent choices between domestic and foreign authority while conserving scarce decisionmaking resources.

The distinctive status of international arbitration agreements in English private international law?

Abstract This Case Note critically discusses the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Enka v Chubb [2020] EWCA Civ 574, where it held that (i) the doctrine of forum non conveniens (FNC) can never apply where an English court is asked to determine if a London arbitration agreement should be enforced by injunction, and that (ii) the ‘separability’ of an arbitration clause from the contract containing it entailed that, absent an express choice of law for it, there was a ‘strong presumption’ that the parties implicitly chose the seat law as its proper law. In doing so, the Court abandoned its previous approach in Sulamérica v Enesa, and indirectly cast doubt on its recent suggestion in Kabab-ji v KFG that ‘implied choices’ of law arguably involved the implication of a term into the arbitration agreement on ‘business efficacy’ grounds. Further, the Court appeared not to acknowledge that, outwith the arbitration context, (i) ‘FNC waiver’ clauses and exclusive jurisdiction agreements do not categorically foreclose FNC, and that (ii) ‘implied choices’ of law should not be casually inferred nowadays. The Court’s analysis in Enka was distinctly arbitration-centric: it was minded to emphasize the non-derogability of the seat courts’ supervisory role, and the ‘separability’ of an arbitration agreement from the contractual document containing it. Enka is an intriguing example of how international arbitration doctrine, particularly as regards arbitration agreements, can materially diverge from cognate principles of private international law. Nevertheless, we question whether international arbitration agreements are truly distinctive enough to justify such differences in treatment. Our assessment is that the answer is probably ‘no’.

Federal Appellate Court Allows Hungarian Holocaust Survivors to Pursue Claims

On December 28, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in Simon v. Republic of Hungary that fourteen Hungarian Jewish survivors of the Holocaust could continue to pursue their claims against Hungary and its state-owned railway. In a 2–1 decision authored by Judge Millett, the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court decision that had dismissed the case on two alternative grounds—the principle of international comity and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The D.C. Circuit thus remanded the long-running case for further proceedings.

A Brief Overview of Recent Supreme Court Precedent – Keeping Foreign Litigation at Bay

GLOBALIZATION marches on. Consistent with this, connections between the United States and the outside world (both perceived and actual) have become commonplace. (1) Of particular relevance to products liability practitioners, from the 1990s through present day, exports of goods and services as a percentage of United States gross domestic product have continued to increase, as has international trade in general. (2) For the United States judiciary, this likely means more litigation that is international in nature. Along with that international flavor comes more claims between persons and entities of different national origins, as well as more choice-of-law, venue, and jurisdictional issues. Due to the civil jury system that it provides, its more generous damages laws, and the different compensation structures available to its legal counsel, the United States (and its constituent states and territories) will likely continue to be an attractive litigation situs for claims with greater connections to foreign countries. (3) In light of this, for products practitioners, as well as defense counsel in other contexts, it is important to understand some of the more recent United States Supreme Court precedent addressing tools to keep foreign litigation at bay. Considered together, these decisions demonstrate the High Court's tendency to err on the side of keeping foreign-centered litigation outside of the United States court system. Examples of such decisions include those addressing where the principal conduct at issue is centered for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSLA); the presumption against extraterritorial application of United States statutory law; personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants; and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. I. Recent Precedent Demonstrating The High Court's Tendency To Keep Foreign Litigation At Bay A. OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs and FSIA's Commercial-Activity Exception In OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, a California resident sued the Austrian state-owned railway for injuries that she sustained while attempting to board a train in Innsbruck, Austria. (4) She predicated her suit on a United States-based travel agent's Internet sale of a Eurail pass to her before she left for her trip to Europe. (5) Such passes are available only to non-Europeans, who may purchase them both directly from the Eurail Group and indirectly through a worldwide network of travel agents. (6) The Austrian governmental defendant raised FSIA, 28 U.S.C. [section][section] 1330, 1332, 1391(0- 1441(d), and 1602-11, as a defensive bar. (7) In response, the plaintiff argued (successfully in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) that her case satisfied FSIA's commercial-activity exception. (8) The commercial-activity exception abrogates sovereign immunity for suits based a commercial activity carried on in the United States by [a] foreign state. (9) The Sachs plaintiff contended that this exception allowed her suit to proceed in United States federal district court because her suit was based upon her Massachusetts travel agent's Internet-based sale of a Eurail pass in the United States, and the travel agent's sale was attributable to the Austrian state-owned railway through common-law principles of agency. (10) Under the plaintiffs and the Ninth Circuit's analysis, so long as at least of her claim was tied to the United States-based ticket sale, the commercial-activity exception applied and allowed her action to proceed here. Without reaching the agency question, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected the plaintiff's position and reversed the Ninth Circuit. (12) Chief Justice Roberts' opinion for the Court reasoned that conduct comprising only one element of a plaintiffs cause of action is insufficient to satisfy the based upon requirement of the first clause of FSIA's commercial-activity exception. …

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of National Courts and Human Rights Enforcement: Quo vadis justitia?

The article constitutes an argument in the debate over the legitimacy of exercising domestic jurisdiction over extraterritorial human rights violations. It seeks to answer a question of the current and future role of national courts in enforcing human rights with respect to extraterritorial violations. The article thus presents and analyses examples of judicial practice from different jurisdictions (United States, Europe and Canada). It also discusses the interrelation between adjudicatory jurisdiction and sovereignty. The survey of the recent case-law proves that in many countries there is a tendency of limiting extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction. The article concludes i.e. that perhaps the time has come to substitute a doctrine of forum non conveniens with the principle of forum necessitatits.

The Continuing Evolution of U.S. Judgments Recognition Law

The substantive law of judgments recognition in the United States has evolved from federal common law, found in a seminal Supreme Court opinion, to primary reliance on state law in both state and federal courts. While state law often is found in a local version of a uniform act, this has not brought about true uniformity, and significant discrepancies exist among the states. These discrepancies in judgments recognition law, combined with a common policy on the circulation of internal judgments under the United States Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, have created opportunities for forum shopping and litigation strategies that result in both inequity of result and inefficiency of judicial process. These inefficiencies are fueled by differences regarding (1) substantive rules regarding the recognition of judgments, (2) requirements for personal and quasi in rem jurisdiction when a judgments recognition action is brought (recognition jurisdiction), and (3) the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in judgments (and arbitral award) recognition cases. Recent cases demonstrate the need for a return to a single, federal legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. This article reviews the history of U.S. judgments recognition law, summarizes current substantive law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, reviews recent decisions that demonstrate the three specific problem areas, and proposes a coordinated approach using federal substantive law on judgments recognition and state law on related matters in order to eliminate the current problems of non-uniformity and inefficient use of the courts.

The Chevron-Ecuador Dispute, Forum Non Conveniens, and the Problem of Ex Ante Inadequacy

This essay, written for the 2013 Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation symposium on lessons from the Chevron-Ecuador environmental litigation, urges that we not take the wrong lesson concerning the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The paper highlights the irony of the forum battles in the litigation. The plaintiffs sued in the United States, the defendants won dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens (arguing that the dispute should be adjudicated by the courts of Ecuador), the plaintiffs obtained a massive judgment in Ecuador, and the defendants challenged the judgment on grounds of fraud and corruption in the Ecuadorian proceedings. Despite the temptation to see the Chevron-Ecuador litigation as a cautionary tale about forum non conveniens, this essay argues that the “adequate alternative forum” standard for forum non conveniens should remain exceedingly low. Ex ante, deference to foreign legal systems should prevail, even as we permit ex post challenges to recognition of judgments on grounds of fraud and corruption.

Putting Stockholders First, Not the First-Filed Complaint

The prevalence of settlements in class and derivative litigation challenging mergers and acquisitions in which the only payment is to plaintiffs’ attorneys suggests potential systemic dysfunction arising from the increased frequency of parallel litigation in multiple state courts. After examining possible explanations for that dysfunction, and the historical development of doctrines limiting parallel state court litigation — the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the “first-filed” doctrine — this article suggests that those doctrines should be revised to better address shareholder class and derivative litigation. Revisions to the doctrine of forum non conveniens should continue the historical trend, deemphasizing fortuitous and increasingly irrelevant geographic considerations, and should place greater emphasis on voluntary choice of law and the development of precedential guidance by the courts of the state responsible for supplying the chosen law. The “first-filed” rule should be replaced in shareholder representative litigation by meaningful consideration of affected parties’ interests and judicial efficiency.

Travel Abroad, Sue at Home 2012: Forum Non Conveniens & the Enforcement of Forum Selection and Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

A common litigation strategy is to sue in the U.S. in federal or state court against a solvent defendant subject to long-arm jurisdiction and the application of U.S. common law or statutory law. Such cases raise a variety of complex liability and procedural issues including liability shifting, jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and choice of law. This Article will identify various types of travel accidents abroad, and discuss the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the enforceability of forum selection and mandatory arbitration clauses in travel consumer contracts.

Forum Non Conveniens as a Jurisdictional Doctrine

The doctrine of forum non conveniens has played an increasingly important role within the federal judicial system. It applies primarily in cases in which the events giving rise to the asserted claims have occurred outside of the United States. While at one time the doctrine was considered limited and exceptional, today its invocation and enforcement has become routine. Unfortunately, the standards under which the doctrine is applied are indeterminate and unpredictable. Essentially, district courts are given a broad, case-management authority to balance the conveniences of the parties and the judicial system in determining whether to decline or to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by Congress. This balance-of-conveniences model has been borrowed from the law of venue; it reflects no more than the standards that a district court applies when determining whether it should transfer a case to another federal district — a determination that has no substantive consequences whatsoever. However, a forum non conveniens dismissal is, in fact, not premised on a venue judgment, but on a jurisdictional judgment that will deny access to the federal judicial system, and the consequence of such dismissal is much more severe than the consequence of a venue transfer. Indeed, it is often the case that a forum non conveniens dismissal ends the litigation and denies access to justice — Ecuador v. Chevron and Delgado v. Shell Oil Co. are just two dramatic-illustrative examples. This article returns the doctrine to its intended operation, namely, as an antidote for exorbitant exercises of personal jurisdiction to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. It also suggests the adoption of a statute designed to limit the scope of a district court’s discretion in applying forum non conveniens by refocusing the inquiry on the jurisdictional roots of the doctrine.

Forum Non Conveniens in Australia: A Comparative Analysis

This paper critically examines the law of forum non conveniens, in particular the use of the ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test in Australia, compared with the ‘more appropriate forum’ test applied in jurisdictions such as the UK and the US. It traces the development of the law in the UK in relation to forum non conveniens, including the English acceptance of the doctrine, and how it has been applied in various cases. Some criticism of the ‘more appropriate forum’ test is noted, and it is not recommended that the courts adopt the ‘laundry list’ approach evident in some US decisions, where up to 25 different factors are considered in assessing a forum non conveniens application. It considers the Australian ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test, and concludes that the ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test should no longer be followed in that it is unnecessarily parochial and is not consistent with other goals of the rules of private international law including comity. Links between Australia and the subject matter may well be tenuous. Confusion attends the application of the test in Australia at present, the court has rejected the English approach but claims to apply some of the factors mentioned in the English approach in the Australian test, and there is an undesirable schism between statutory rules applicable in domestic cases and the approach when the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens is used. The law regarding forum non conveniens should be harmonious with choice of law rules, and interest analysis can assist in formulating the desired approach to forum non conveniens applications.

Nemariam and Others v. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia (No 1)

671Claims — International claims — States agreeing to establish commission to hear claims brought by one State against another on behalf of individuals — Nature of process — Whether an adequate alternative forum to national court — Control of claims by the StateRelationship of international law and municipal law — Claims — Relationship between national and international proceedings — Whether international tribunal an adequate alternative forum to claims in a municipal court — Doctrine of forum non conveniens — The law of the United States