A Study On The Convenience Review Of Jurisdiction Agreements In The United States

The agreement jurisdiction system has been gradually accepted by all countries in the world since the mid-20 th century,but the degree of recognition varies from country to country.The jurisdiction of the court designated by the parties' jurisdiction agreement is generally recognized in the legislation of various countries,but considering the factors of judicial sovereignty and efficiency,most countries still restrict the jurisdiction system of the agreement.Continental law countries adopt the principle of practical connection to restrict the courts chosen by the parties,and have different requirements for the degree of connection.Because common law countries do not attach great importance to the principle of practical contact,they allow the parties to choose a third-party neutral court.The advantage of this requirement is that the parties' acceptance of the outcome of the case is enhanced.Although the common law system will not use the principle of practical connection to restrict the jurisdiction agreement,it will use other ways to restrict the jurisdiction agreement.If the court applies the principle of inconvenience to examine the enforceability of the jurisdictional agreement,it decides whether to suspend or refuse the proceedings.The convenience review of jurisdictional agreements is based on the validity of jurisdictional agreements.Therefore,we must be clear that the validity and enforceability of jurisdictional agreements are not the same concept.Enforceable jurisdictional agreements must be effective,but effective jurisdictional agreements are not necessarily enforceable.The Bremen case is the first case in which the United States recognizes jurisdictional agreements.By analyzing the convenience of jurisdictional agreements,the United States Supreme Court has come up with two major rules,the criterion of reasonableness and the rule of serious inconvenience.However,it failed to provide clear guidance to lower courts,which led to different patterns of judicial practice in American courts.However,in general,the United States courts will customarily review jurisdictional agreements when facing convenience.As can be seen from the latest American jurisprudence,its convenience review of jurisdictional agreements is in line with the Bremen model,showing a regression trend.The agreement jurisdiction system requires that the exercise of jurisdiction should respect the wishes of the parties.However,the principle of inconvenience of court focuses more on the exercise of the court's discretion.Then the judicial practice of the United States will inevitably lead to the collision of the two systems at the value level.We can't help wondering the appropriateness of this practice in American courts.After analysis,I think that the convenience review of jurisdiction agreement is a reasonable restriction,which can prevent the parties from abusing their right of action to seek unreasonable interests,and also prevent the phenomenon of large-scale transfer of international cases.China is a country that absorbs and internalizes the two major rules at the same time,and has always adhered to the principle of practical connection.So should we learn from the judicial practice of the United States? If we study,we should absorb it wholly or partly.After analyzing the current legislative situation and judicial practice in China,it is concluded that China does not need to review all the jurisdictional agreements conveniently,but only the non-exclusive jurisdictional agreements.Hope to provide some ideas for future courts to deal with similar issues,and have a positive impact.