英文摘要 |
Having a overview of the jurisprudence in our country, the following questions come up, which deserve some further considerations: firstly it's to determine whether and to which extent paragraph 1 and the following of Civil Procedural Rule could be applicable to the reparation of international jurisdiction. Secondly it is to ask whether the courts could apply the principle of forum non conveniens to deny the existing jurisdiction. Thirdly it's the principle of actor sequitur forum rei to be re-evaluated. This article argues that the double functionality of local jurisdictional regulations should be accepted, as the German, Austrian and French law demonstrate, whereas the principle of forum non conveniens in common law or the special situation theory in Japan are to be rejected, since the legal certainty has a higher ranking especially in light of international context. In order to legitimate the burden of being suited at foreign forum of the defendant other than at local ones, we should carefully take account of the meaning and purpose of each rule of special venue by drawing their reach. As an example this article deals with the so-called exorbitant jurisdiction of assets, which is internationally notorious. The paragraph 3 of Civil Procedural Rule belongs to this kind of exorbitant jurisdiction. But through a correct interpretation it should be concluded that this special venue serves the interest of enforcement of the plaintiff and realize the material justice of jurisdiction law. This thesis corresponds just to the legal text of that paragraph and is also inspired from German law. |