The Close-up Of The Personal Jurisdiction In The American Procedure

This dissertation introduced us the evolvement,development,and transformation of the personal jurisdiction of American through some classical legal cases in the history ,and aslo express the reason for these movement on the rule of jurisdiction in every phase,these reasons almost about the economy,politic and itself of law.In the dissertation also expressed the basis of the personal jurisdiction and give us why these principles have these deficiency.And pointed it out.Thesis can be divided into a total of seven parts:An overview of the first part: in the international civil proceedings, the jurisdiction of the court of the merits of the case the first condition to appear. In general, the classification of the international jurisdiction of many countries in the world mainly due to the legislative and judicial practice, the focus is different from civil jurisdiction of the international criteria for the classification in theory, vary, and thus the classification of the international community there are different such as: in order to suit the purpose of the standard can be divided into action on the jurisdiction and proceedings in rem jurisdiction, and then to determine jurisdiction because of the focus can be divided into different territorial jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, in accordance with the litigation and a country's public policy can be divided into different closely related to the exclusive jurisdiction and any jurisdiction, in accordance with the parties in determining the role of jurisdiction can be divided into compulsory jurisdiction and the jurisdiction agreement.The second part is related to the personal jurisdiction of the origin of concepts and principles. Generally refers to the personal jurisdiction of the court and between the parties should have some minimum level of close contact, allowing the parties to the jurisdiction of the courts is justified and reasonable. In the United States, personal jurisdiction requirements of the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over the parties and asked the trial court's jurisdiction must comply with the amendment to the U.S. Constitution provided for in article 14 of the due process (due process) requirements. The use of that part of the case: John Neff v. oz (Pennoyer v.Neff) to illustrate the personal jurisdiction of the main problems in the historical development in the United States as well as evaluating the status.The third part is the early development of personal jurisdiction. As our country has been advocated since the five basic principles of peaceful coexistence, as advocated by the United States of jurisdiction between the State has been a "mutual noninterference in internal affairs" of standards, based on the geographical limits of the power for the principle of domination. While this power is based on state law, but in fact by law or under the control of the person behind. That is to say power is a "life" is the human desire as the increase in continuous expansion, as long as the power to find any suitable for their own reasons for the expansion of the soil and will not hesitate to extend each of the corner. Partly by the Case: HessV. Pawloski adopted a statement of the case compared with the early development of the "Neff v." the principles set forth in which the difference between and compare different reasons.Part IV of the principle of personal jurisdiction over the turning point. The jurisdiction of the United States standards on the great turning point has been completely abandoned the principle of the original standard. We elaborate on the case and analysis to illustrate how the case is a turning point in the standards. First of all, to make a statement on the merits that ternational Shoe Co. V. Washington International Shoe Co. v. Washington case to establish why the case is the jurisdiction of the United States were a turning point as well as the principles set forth in the final again with the public v. Ukraine Dodson was a comparison, whether the case is the "International v. Washington," the inheritance and development of the case. Summed up the traditional establishment of the principle of personal jurisdiction and that the principles of the role of positive and negative, thus the principle of comparative analysis of innovation and new deficiencies.Part V of the United States the jurisdiction of the existing evaluation system. With the technology developed, there has been the globalization of Internet cyberspace, non-center to break the sovereign territory of the boundaries, the jurisdiction of the Court is faced with many difficulties, so that the basis of jurisdiction to determine the tendency of occurrence of the fuzzy, how to clarify and straighten out the relationship in which the legal profession is facing common problems.Part VI of China's current lack of jurisdiction in the place, in accordance with full respect for the principle of party autonomy and the concept of transformed and improved.Part VII is more than theory.