论英美法下的“不方便法院原则”
摘要
不方便法院原则是英美法项下法院拒绝行使管辖权的一种重要制度。此原则存在的前提是审判法院具有适当的管辖权，同时存在另一个具有管辖权的法院。如果从当事人与诉因的关系以及当事人、证人、律师或法院的便利或者花费等角度看，审判法院审理案件是极不方便的，而由另一个法院审理更为适宜，在此种状况下原审法院有权拒绝行使管辖权。
不方便法院原则起源于十八世纪的苏格兰，最初被称为“非管辖法院”（Forum Non Competens），是指法院缺乏管辖能力（lack of competence），从而拒绝行使管辖权的情况（很明显，法院缺乏管辖能力和法院因为不便利而拒绝管辖是有区别的。）。到十九世纪末，苏格兰法院发展出了现代的不方便法院原则，以减少通过扣押财产而产生的管辖权（arrestment ad fundandam jurisdiction）所可能带来的损害。
不方便法院原则存在两个不同的适用标准，即程序滥用标准（abuse of process approach）1和最合适法院标准（most suitable forum approach）。早期适用的是程序滥用标准，即只有在存在压制或无理取闹（oppressive or vexatious）时，继续诉讼程序会导致不公正，存在对法院程序的滥用的情况下才能适用不方便法院原则。而随着法律的发展，不方便法院原则的适用逐步过渡到最合适法院标准，即直到法院确认存在另一个拥有管辖权的替代法院地，且在当地审理对于各当事人的利益更为合适，更有利于正义的要求时，才适用不方便法院原则。
美国
不方便法院原则在美国得到了极大的承认和发展。1929年，帕克斯顿.布莱尔（Paxton Blair）在哥伦比亚大学法学评论中发表了“英美法中的不方便法院原则”一文，标志着美国法学理论正式承认了此原则。美国联邦最高法院在1947年“海湾石油公司诉吉尔伯特”及1981年“派珀飞机公司诉雷诺”这两个经典案例中，明确将不方便法院原则适用于美国国内及国际诉讼，从而正式确立了不方便法院原则在美国法律实践中的地位。
最高法院以两步标准来判断是否应适用不方便法院原则：（1）是否在另一国家或司法辖区存在合格的替代法院；（2）当存在这一替代法院时，法院必须考虑多种因素，例如原告的国籍、替代法院的能力、案件适用的法律及其后果以及进行利益衡量。法院必须考虑并衡量私人权益和公共利益，例如取得证据的相对便
利、出庭人员的出庭费用、判决的可执行性以及法院的工作负担、案件与法院地的关联性等。只有在这两类因素衡量的结果有力的支持被告时，才能对原告的法院选择（Forum Selection）作出干预，即法院以其自由裁量权作出是否适用不方便法院原则的决定。
不方便法院原则的优点为可以限制过度管辖及挑选法院的行为，减少法院的负担，使得最方便的法院审理案件，有利于案件的解决。但其缺点也是非常明显的，诸如阻碍了外国原告对美国公司提起诉讼，违反了公平及国民待遇原则，给予法院过大的自由裁量权并可能对案件的解决造成新的拖延。
英格兰
不方便法院原则在英国并未象在美国那样得到广泛的承认，相反英国法院在很长时间内拒绝适用苏格兰法上的“不方便法院原则”。1906年以前，英国法院在审判中，通过自由裁量权中止诉讼的依据都是未决判决原则（Lis Alibi Pendens Doctrine）。即当相同当事人之间涉及同一或类似争议的诉讼同时在英国或某外国进行审理时，如该诉讼是压制或无理取闹的（oppressive or vexatious），则英国法院可中止英国的诉讼（stay of proceedings）或者通过强制令制止外国的诉讼（leave to serve a writ out of jurisdiction）。1936年，斯科特法官在圣皮埃尔（St. Pierre V. South American Stores Ltd.）一案中明确表示阐述了法院的基本行动原则，即英国法院只有在存在“压制或无理取闹”时才能中止诉讼。1973年，上议院在审理“大西洋之星”（The Atlantic Star）一案中，被要求在英国法中援引不方便法院原则，但上议院拒绝了此种请求，只是将斯科特法官阐述的，“压制或无理取闹”标准予以更宽的解释，并据此中止了诉讼。
1978年，在麦克香农案（McShannon V. Rockware Glass Ltd.）中，上议院迪普洛克勋爵对斯科特法官的阐述的原则进行了重述，并与上议院其它法官（基思勋爵除外）一起在事实上停止适用“压制或无理取闹”标准，并转而采用最合适法院标准。此后，在1980年具有里程碑意义的Spiliada一案中，上议院重新解释了其在麦克香农案中阐明的原则，并明确将不方便法院原则引入了英国法律，这一判例也标志着不方便法院原则最终在英国得到确立。
相较于美国法院适用的“不方便法院原则”，英国规则适用起来更为严格。英格兰法院在适用“不方便法院原则”时规定了严格的两阶段方法：第一步，被告负举证责任证明存在另一有管辖权的法院地，且比英格兰法院更为适当或该法院为审理案件的自然法院。第二步，当被告证明了外国法院作为案件的自然法院比英格兰法院更为适当后，原告必须证明英格兰法院中止诉讼是不符合正义要求的，其正当权益将收到影响。
不方便法院原则在其它国家的发展
随着英国逐步确认了不方便法院?
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is a common law discretionary power that allows a court to decline the existing jurisdiction upon a plaintiff's action. The prerequisite for the doctrine is that the convenience of the parties involved, including the cost of the parties, the availability of the evidence and witnesses, e.t.c, may be better served if the action can be brought and tried in an alternative forum. Therefore, a judge may declare the forum to be non vonveniens (inconvenient) and refuse to exercise the jurisdiction despite the jurisdiction already exists.
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is originated from the Scotland in 18th century, which provided for dismissal of actions under the term of forum non competens (which means the court is lack of competence). By the end of the 19th century, the Scottish court had developed the doctrine into Forum Non Conveniens to balance undue hardship arising out of arrestment ad fundandam jurisdiction.
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens has two approaches: abuse of process approach (also called oppressive or vexatious approach) and most suitable forum approach. Abuse of process approach is adopted in early times, which means the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens can only be applied when there exists the oppressive or vexatious conditions and the abuse of process may led to injustice. With the development of the law, most suitable forum approach is becoming more and more popular. The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens shall be applied only when an alternative forum with the jurisdiction exists and the interests of the parties are better served in that alternative forum.
America
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is a very important doctrine in American law. In 1929, Paxton Blair published his famous article "the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law" in Columbia Law Review, which represents the theoretical recognition of Forum Non Conveniens in U.S. law. Two leading cases, Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert in 1947 and Piper Aircraft v. Reyno in 1981 by US Supreme Court mean the American court have officially applied Forum Non Conveniens into the court practice.
The Supreme Court adopts two-step criteria to determine whether to apply Forum Non Conveniens: a. Whether there exists a proper alternative forum; b. The
court must consider many factors, such as the applied law, citizenship and a balance of interests if the alternative forum exists. The court should balance the private interests and the public interests. Only when the result of the balance of interests are strongly in favor of the Defendant, the judge can exercise its discretion to decline the jurisdiction of the court.
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens can limit the excessive jurisdiction and the forum shopping; reduce the workload of the court and choose the most suitable forum to hear the case. However, the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens also has some disadvantages, such as giving the judge too much discretionary powers, making new delays and encumbering the foreign plaintiff to bring a legal action in US.
England
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is not widely recognized in England, whereas the court in England has refused to apply the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in a very long time. Before 1906, the court in England exercised discretionary power to decline the jurisdiction by serving a writ out of jurisdiction pursuant to Lis Alibi Pendens Doctrine (concurrent jurisdiction or parallel proceedings). In leading case "St. Pierre V. South American Stores Ltd., 1936", Justice Scott proclaimed that only when there exists oppressive or vexatious conditions the court can stay a proceeding. In 1973, the House of Lords refused to apply the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the lead case "The Atlantic Star". It only made a wider explanation to the principles established by Justice Scott in the case "St. Pierre V. South American Stores Ltd.".
In the lead case "McShannon V. Rockware Glass Ltd.", 1978, Lord Diplock res
不方便法院原则起源于十八世纪的苏格兰，最初被称为“非管辖法院”（Forum Non Competens），是指法院缺乏管辖能力（lack of competence），从而拒绝行使管辖权的情况（很明显，法院缺乏管辖能力和法院因为不便利而拒绝管辖是有区别的。）。到十九世纪末，苏格兰法院发展出了现代的不方便法院原则，以减少通过扣押财产而产生的管辖权（arrestment ad fundandam jurisdiction）所可能带来的损害。
不方便法院原则存在两个不同的适用标准，即程序滥用标准（abuse of process approach）1和最合适法院标准（most suitable forum approach）。早期适用的是程序滥用标准，即只有在存在压制或无理取闹（oppressive or vexatious）时，继续诉讼程序会导致不公正，存在对法院程序的滥用的情况下才能适用不方便法院原则。而随着法律的发展，不方便法院原则的适用逐步过渡到最合适法院标准，即直到法院确认存在另一个拥有管辖权的替代法院地，且在当地审理对于各当事人的利益更为合适，更有利于正义的要求时，才适用不方便法院原则。
美国
不方便法院原则在美国得到了极大的承认和发展。1929年，帕克斯顿.布莱尔（Paxton Blair）在哥伦比亚大学法学评论中发表了“英美法中的不方便法院原则”一文，标志着美国法学理论正式承认了此原则。美国联邦最高法院在1947年“海湾石油公司诉吉尔伯特”及1981年“派珀飞机公司诉雷诺”这两个经典案例中，明确将不方便法院原则适用于美国国内及国际诉讼，从而正式确立了不方便法院原则在美国法律实践中的地位。
最高法院以两步标准来判断是否应适用不方便法院原则：（1）是否在另一国家或司法辖区存在合格的替代法院；（2）当存在这一替代法院时，法院必须考虑多种因素，例如原告的国籍、替代法院的能力、案件适用的法律及其后果以及进行利益衡量。法院必须考虑并衡量私人权益和公共利益，例如取得证据的相对便
利、出庭人员的出庭费用、判决的可执行性以及法院的工作负担、案件与法院地的关联性等。只有在这两类因素衡量的结果有力的支持被告时，才能对原告的法院选择（Forum Selection）作出干预，即法院以其自由裁量权作出是否适用不方便法院原则的决定。
不方便法院原则的优点为可以限制过度管辖及挑选法院的行为，减少法院的负担，使得最方便的法院审理案件，有利于案件的解决。但其缺点也是非常明显的，诸如阻碍了外国原告对美国公司提起诉讼，违反了公平及国民待遇原则，给予法院过大的自由裁量权并可能对案件的解决造成新的拖延。
英格兰
不方便法院原则在英国并未象在美国那样得到广泛的承认，相反英国法院在很长时间内拒绝适用苏格兰法上的“不方便法院原则”。1906年以前，英国法院在审判中，通过自由裁量权中止诉讼的依据都是未决判决原则（Lis Alibi Pendens Doctrine）。即当相同当事人之间涉及同一或类似争议的诉讼同时在英国或某外国进行审理时，如该诉讼是压制或无理取闹的（oppressive or vexatious），则英国法院可中止英国的诉讼（stay of proceedings）或者通过强制令制止外国的诉讼（leave to serve a writ out of jurisdiction）。1936年，斯科特法官在圣皮埃尔（St. Pierre V. South American Stores Ltd.）一案中明确表示阐述了法院的基本行动原则，即英国法院只有在存在“压制或无理取闹”时才能中止诉讼。1973年，上议院在审理“大西洋之星”（The Atlantic Star）一案中，被要求在英国法中援引不方便法院原则，但上议院拒绝了此种请求，只是将斯科特法官阐述的，“压制或无理取闹”标准予以更宽的解释，并据此中止了诉讼。
1978年，在麦克香农案（McShannon V. Rockware Glass Ltd.）中，上议院迪普洛克勋爵对斯科特法官的阐述的原则进行了重述，并与上议院其它法官（基思勋爵除外）一起在事实上停止适用“压制或无理取闹”标准，并转而采用最合适法院标准。此后，在1980年具有里程碑意义的Spiliada一案中，上议院重新解释了其在麦克香农案中阐明的原则，并明确将不方便法院原则引入了英国法律，这一判例也标志着不方便法院原则最终在英国得到确立。
相较于美国法院适用的“不方便法院原则”，英国规则适用起来更为严格。英格兰法院在适用“不方便法院原则”时规定了严格的两阶段方法：第一步，被告负举证责任证明存在另一有管辖权的法院地，且比英格兰法院更为适当或该法院为审理案件的自然法院。第二步，当被告证明了外国法院作为案件的自然法院比英格兰法院更为适当后，原告必须证明英格兰法院中止诉讼是不符合正义要求的，其正当权益将收到影响。
不方便法院原则在其它国家的发展
随着英国逐步确认了不方便法院?
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is a common law discretionary power that allows a court to decline the existing jurisdiction upon a plaintiff's action. The prerequisite for the doctrine is that the convenience of the parties involved, including the cost of the parties, the availability of the evidence and witnesses, e.t.c, may be better served if the action can be brought and tried in an alternative forum. Therefore, a judge may declare the forum to be non vonveniens (inconvenient) and refuse to exercise the jurisdiction despite the jurisdiction already exists.
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is originated from the Scotland in 18th century, which provided for dismissal of actions under the term of forum non competens (which means the court is lack of competence). By the end of the 19th century, the Scottish court had developed the doctrine into Forum Non Conveniens to balance undue hardship arising out of arrestment ad fundandam jurisdiction.
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens has two approaches: abuse of process approach (also called oppressive or vexatious approach) and most suitable forum approach. Abuse of process approach is adopted in early times, which means the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens can only be applied when there exists the oppressive or vexatious conditions and the abuse of process may led to injustice. With the development of the law, most suitable forum approach is becoming more and more popular. The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens shall be applied only when an alternative forum with the jurisdiction exists and the interests of the parties are better served in that alternative forum.
America
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is a very important doctrine in American law. In 1929, Paxton Blair published his famous article "the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law" in Columbia Law Review, which represents the theoretical recognition of Forum Non Conveniens in U.S. law. Two leading cases, Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert in 1947 and Piper Aircraft v. Reyno in 1981 by US Supreme Court mean the American court have officially applied Forum Non Conveniens into the court practice.
The Supreme Court adopts two-step criteria to determine whether to apply Forum Non Conveniens: a. Whether there exists a proper alternative forum; b. The
court must consider many factors, such as the applied law, citizenship and a balance of interests if the alternative forum exists. The court should balance the private interests and the public interests. Only when the result of the balance of interests are strongly in favor of the Defendant, the judge can exercise its discretion to decline the jurisdiction of the court.
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens can limit the excessive jurisdiction and the forum shopping; reduce the workload of the court and choose the most suitable forum to hear the case. However, the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens also has some disadvantages, such as giving the judge too much discretionary powers, making new delays and encumbering the foreign plaintiff to bring a legal action in US.
England
The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is not widely recognized in England, whereas the court in England has refused to apply the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in a very long time. Before 1906, the court in England exercised discretionary power to decline the jurisdiction by serving a writ out of jurisdiction pursuant to Lis Alibi Pendens Doctrine (concurrent jurisdiction or parallel proceedings). In leading case "St. Pierre V. South American Stores Ltd., 1936", Justice Scott proclaimed that only when there exists oppressive or vexatious conditions the court can stay a proceeding. In 1973, the House of Lords refused to apply the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the lead case "The Atlantic Star". It only made a wider explanation to the principles established by Justice Scott in the case "St. Pierre V. South American Stores Ltd.".
In the lead case "McShannon V. Rockware Glass Ltd.", 1978, Lord Diplock res
引文
中文
1、 徐昕/译 《英国民事诉讼规则》，中国法制出版社，2001年1月北京第一版；
2、 杰弗里.C.哈泽德 米歇尔.塔鲁伊著，张茂译 《美国民事诉讼法导论》，中国政法大学出版社，1998年9月第一版
3、 林欣、李琼英 《国际私法》，中国人民大学出版社。1998年第1版
4、 张茂，《美国国际民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社，1999年第一版
5、 蔡彦敏、洪浩著，《正当程序法律分析》，中国政法大学出版社，2001年4月第一版；
6、 李旺，《国际诉讼竞合》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年第1版
7、 沈达明，《比较民事诉讼法初论》，中信出版社，1991年第一版
8、 赵相林、杜新丽，《中国国际私法立法问题研究》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年10月第一版
9、 J.H.C.Morris，李东来译，《法律冲突法》，中国对外翻译出版公司，1990年9月第一版
10、 刘铁铮、陈荣传著，《国际私法论》，三民书局，1991年版
11、 王军主编，《国际私法案例教程》，中国政法大学出版社，1999年3月第一版
英文
1、 Richard H. Field, Materials For A Basic Course In Civil Procedure, University Case Book Series, The Foundation Press Inc.,1978
John O'Brien Smith's Conflict of Laws, Cavendish Publishing Limited,2nd
2、 Edition, 1999
3、 Prof. Solum，International Business Litigation，Summer 2001，2001暑期Summer School教材
4、 Mary Kay Kane，Civil Procedure，West Nutshell Series，法律出版社，2001年2月第一版
参考论文：
中文
1、 胡永庆，“不方便法院”原则比较研究，《诉讼法论丛》第4卷，法律出版社2000年4月版
2、 李祥俊，“论国际民事诉讼程序中的不方便法院原则”，《当代法学》2001年第4期
3、 刘卫翔、郑自文 “国际民事诉讼中不方便法院原则论”，《法学评论》1997年第4期
4、 胡振杰，“不方便法院说比较研究”，《法学研究》2002年第4期
5、 盛勇强，“涉外民事诉讼管辖权冲突的国际协调”，《人民司法》1993年第9期
6、 奚晓明，“不方便法院制度的几点思考”，《法学研究》2002年第1期
7、 李祥俊，“从印度博帕尔毒气泄漏案看不方便法院原则”，《中国青年政治学院学报》，2001年9月，第20卷第5期
8、 刘仁山，“加拿大国际私法的发展及其对我国的启示”，《中国法学》2002年第2期
英文
1、 Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal
2、 Peter J. Carney, International Forum Non Conveniens: "Section 1404.5" A Proposal in the Interest of Sovereignty, Comity, and Individual Justice, American University Law Review, December 1995
3、 Christopher Speer, THE CONTINUED USE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS: IS IT JUSTIFIED? Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 1993
4、 Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS, Texas International Law Journal, Summer 2002
5、 Madeleine de Swardt, "NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE IN SOUTH AFRICAN LAW", Shipping Law Unit of the Faculty of Law in June 1994
6、 Jeffrey M. Eilender, "FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND COMPREHENSIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE COVERAGE SUITS", the Columbia Law Revision Association, Inc. 1990
1 又称“压制或无理取闹”标准
2 Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, by Herry Campell Black, 1979, West Publishing Co., P589. The Original Sentence is "discretionary power of court to decline jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of justice would be better served if the action were brought and tried in another forum".
3 以美国为例，只有在对当事人具有personal jurisdiction或对诉讼请求具有subject matter jurisdiction时，法院才可以审理某项诉讼。
4 此即所谓替代法院（alternative forum），一般位于另一个法域，可以是另一个国家，也可以是另一个州（如美国）。如果替代法院与原审法院位于同一个法域中，一般可直接通过制定法调整管辖冲突的情况。（具体讨论见下文）
5 又称“压制或无理取闹”标准
6 Robert Braucher, The Inconvenient Federal Forum, 60 HARV.L.REV.908 (1946-1947); from the FN13, Justice Marshall's opinion regarding Piper Aircraft v. Reyno case
7 即苏格兰法院扣押外国人的财产，迫使其来苏格兰参加诉讼。
8 Williamson v. The North Eastern Railway Company, 21 Scot. L. Rep. 421，见李旺《国际诉讼竟合》110页
9 1892 Sess. Cas.at 665 (Scot. 1st Div.)
10 The Plea can never be sustained unless the court is satisfied that there is some other tribunal, having competent jurisdiction, in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and fort the ends of juristice. (P 668)
11 La Societe du Gaz V. La Societe de Navigation, 见李旺“国际诉讼竞合”110页
12 J.Story (1779-1845)，美国最高法院法官，曾任哈佛大学法学院兼职教授。
13 J. Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 中国对外翻译出版公司1990年译本，510页。
14 Hilton V. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163-164 (1895)
15 此三原则为：“（1） 每个国家法律在其政府范围内有效，并约束其管辖下的所有人，但在本国范围外无效； （2） 在一国政府范围内的任何人，不论是久居还是暂住，都应视为该国的居民； （3） 各国君主都应按礼让原则行事，使在一国政府范围内取得的权利可以到处保持其效力，只要这些权利不会对其政府及其国民的权力或权利造成损害。”
16 Harold Kleinmann, Admiralty Suits Involving Foreigners, 31 Tex. L Rev. 889,890 (1952-53)
17 Willendson V. Forsoket, 29 F. Cas. 1283 (No. 17,682)
18 张茂，《美国国际民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社，1999年第一版，98页
19 Gardner V. Thomas, 14 Johns. 134 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1817)
20 Foss V. Richards, 139 A. 313 (M.E. 1927)
21 Jackson & Sons V. Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co., 168 A. 895 (N. H. 1930)
22 Universal Adjustment Corp. V. Middland Bank, 184 N.E. 152 (Mass 1933)
23 "the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law",29 Colum.L.Rev. 1, 21 (1929)
24 Canada Malting Co. V. Paterson S.S., 285 U.S. 413 (1932)
25 314 U.S. 44 (1941)
26 Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947)
27 Erie R. Co V. Tompkins,本案例被称为Erie问题，即在具体案例中是适用州法还是联邦法律的问题。
28 "An interest to be considered, and the one likely to be most pressed, is the private interest of the litigant. Important considerations are the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. There may also be questions as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained. " "Factors of public interest also have place in applying the doctrine. Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home."330 U.S. 508,509, see P848 of Richard H. Field, Materials For A Basic Course In Civil Procedure, University Case Book Series, The Foundation Press Inc.,1978
29 Koster V. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947)
30 “当法院发现为了重大司法公正的利益，诉讼应在另一法院审理时，该法院可根据适当的条件中止或解除全部或部分诉讼。”
31 Footnotes 46, Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany.
32 28 U.S.C. 1404 (a) (1948),the statute provides, "For the convenience of parties, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought."
33 376 U.S. 612 (1964)
34 Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252 (1981)
35 苏格兰法当时还不承认侵权法项下的严格责任，且只有死者亲属才能提起wrongful death这一诉讼请求。
36 在美国法中，只有最高院发出certiorari的案件才能得到最高院的审理。这些案件一般是具有典型意义的或存在非常重大的法律问题的案件。
37 Footnote 74, Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany
38 例如Creative Technology Ltd. V. Aztech System Pet. Ltd., by U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 61 F.3d 696 (1995); 以及Mercier V. Sheraton Internation Inc., 981 F.2d 1345 (1992)等。
39 见林欣、李琼英 《国际私法》，中国人民大学出版社。1998年第1版，112页。
40 634 F. Supp. 842 (S.D.N.Y 1986), modified 809 F.2d. 195 (2d Cir), cert. Denied, 484 U.S. 871 (1987)
41 Tramp Oil & Marine, Ltd. V. M/V Mermaid I, 743 F.2d 48, 50 (1st Cir. 1984)
42 Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 255-256 (1981)
43 Certiorari No. 80-883
44 刘卫翔、郑自文 “国际民事诉讼中不方便法院原则论”，《法学评论》1997年第4期，46页。
45 见前述吉尔伯特判决。
46 Footnote 173, Peter J. Carney, International Forum Non Conveniens: "Section 1404.5" A Proposal in the Interest of Sovereignty, Comity, and Individual Justice, American University Law Review, December 1995
47 Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 260 (1981)
48 "the ultimate inquiry is where trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice."
49 Footnote 6,7 of Christopher Speer, THE CONTINUED USE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS: IS IT JUSTIFIED? Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 1993
50 see part II E.1 of Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal
51 David Boyce, Foreign Plaintiffs and Forum Non Conveniens: Going Beyond Reyno, 64 Tex.L.Rev. 196-204 (1985), see Footnote 20 of Christopher Speer, THE CONTINUED USE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS: IS IT JUSTIFIED? Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 1993
52 Blair, "the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law"， supra note 3, Blair argues that an effective means of dealing with the problems of calendar congestion is wider use of the inherent discretionary power of courts to grant dismissals of cases based on forum non conveniens.
53 Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. 507. "[a] plaintiff sometimes is under temptation to resort to a strategy of forcing the trial at a most inconvenient place for an adversary, even at some inconvenience to himself."
54 International Shoe Co. V. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)
55 当被告与法院地之间有最低限度联系，且对其管辖的行使不会违反“传统的公平审理和实质性公正的概念”时，行使管辖权不会违反宪法的正当程序原则。
56 如Ashai Metal Industry Co., Ltd V. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (1987)
57 例如，1955年美国伊利诺伊州长臂管辖法规定，在对人诉讼中，下列案件可向州外的个人和公司送达传票和诉讼文书：（1）任何在该州的交易；（2）在该州进行的侵权行为；（3）对在该州的不动产享有所有权、使用或占有者；（4）订立契约，对在该州的任何人、财产或风险提供保险者。
58 林欣、李琼英 《国际私法》，中国人民大学出版社。1998年第1版，74页。
59 Gary Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, Kluwer (3rd ed. 1996), P 330
60 115 Wash.2d 123, 794 P.2d 1272 (1990)
61 Dow Chemical Co. v. Castro Alfaro, 786 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. 1990)。此案中Castro及其他81位哥斯达黎加公民在美国提起诉讼，声称其遭受了DBCP杀虫剂的伤害，要求损害赔偿。初审法院以不方便法院原则拒绝受理，最高法院推翻了初审法院的裁定。
62 罗伯逊教授分析了Macedo V. Boeing Co.一案和Pain V. United Technologies Co.一案后得出了上述结论。见“An object Lesson”363页
63 Currie, "Change of Venue and the Conflict of Laws".L.Rev. 405 (1955)
64 Dow Chemical Co. v. Castro Alfaro, 786 S.W.2d 674 & 686(Tex. 1990)
65当法院通过强制令制止外国的诉讼时，并非试图支配外国法院，因为“强制令不是向法院，而是向当事人”发出的。但是由于发出强制令的效果是干预在另一管辖区域内的诉讼，所以“应当非常审慎地行使这种权力，避免对另一法院哪怕是表面的不正当干预”。因为制止外国法院的诉讼的强制令可能往往是难以执行的，所以“毫无疑问，英国法院如果中止一个诉讼的话，最通常的情况总是中止英国法院的诉讼。”
66 沈达明，《比较民事诉讼法初论》（上册），中信出版社1991年版，24－32页
67 [1987] AC 460
68在英国的原告是国外的被告，或英国的被告在国外是原告的情况，和同一个人在两国均为原告这种情况之间，法院更不愿意在前一种情况下中止的英国的诉讼或制止外国的诉讼。据说这是因为诉讼的中止或强制令的结果会使被中止或被禁止的一方当事人在其不可能享有相等支配权的诉讼中限于充当被告。
69 [1906] 1 K.B 141, see Note 139 of Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal
70 [1936] 1 KB 382 (the proceedings on jurisdiction); the subsequent trial and appeal were reported at [1936] 1 All ER 206
71 John O'Brien, Smith's Conflict of Laws, Cavendish Publishing Limited,2nd Edition, 1999, Page 200
72 Atlantic Star, [1974] AC 436; [1973] All ER 175 (Lords Reid, Wilberforce and Kilbrandon forming the majority; Lords Simon and Morris in the minority)
73 Macshannon v. Rockware Glass Ltd., [1978] App. Cas. 795 (appeal taken from Q.B)
74 John O'Brien, Smith's Conflict of Laws, Cavendish Publishing Limited,2nd Edition, 1999, Page 202
75 参见李旺《国际诉讼竟合》84页；John O'Brien, Smith's Conflict of Laws, Page 202
76 [1984] App Cas 411
77 不在英格兰的被告原则上英格兰法院并不能行使对人管辖权，但根据最高法院规则第十一条（RSC Order XI）第1条（1）的规定，当起诉时被告不在英格兰时，英格兰法院可根据原告申请得以自由裁量权许可在外国对被告送达传票，从而对该案享有管辖权。
78 [1987] App Case 460-461
79 徐昕/译 《英国民事诉讼规则》，中国法制出版社，2001年1月北京第一版，149页
80 G.C.Cheshire & P.M.North, Private International Law 205 (11th ed. 1987); see note 128 of Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal.
81 John O'Brien, Smith's Conflict of Laws, Cavendish Publishing Limited,2nd Edition, 1999, Page 203
82 Jackson, Enforcement of Maritime Claims Lloyd's of London Press, 1985, P 112-114
83 参见Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS, Texas International Law Journal, 2002
84 参见李旺《国际诉讼竟合》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年第一版，45页
85 见赖紫宁，“国际民事诉讼管辖权的根据及其新发展”
86 J.P. McEvoy, International Litigation: Canada, Forum Non Conveniens and the Anti-Suit Injunction, 17 Advocs. Q. 1, 5 (1995)
87 刘仁山，“加拿大国际私法的发展及其对我国的启示”，中国法学2002年第2期，179页
88 Amchem Prods. Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers' Comp. Bd.), [1993] S.C.R. (Can.).
89 Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS, Texas International Law Journal, Summer 2002, P 482-484
90 胡振杰，“不方便法院说比较研究”，《法学研究》2002年第4期，140页
91 Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co. v. Fay (1988) 79 A.L.R. 9 (Austl.).
92见胡振杰，“不方便法院说比较研究”，《法学研究》2002年第4期，141页
93 Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS, Texas International Law Journal, Summer 2002, P 486
94 原条款为"A court may decline to exercise its admiralty jurisdiction in any proceedings instituted or to be instituted, if it is of the opinion that the action can more appropriately be adjudicated upon by another court in the Republic or by any other court, tribunal or body elsewhere."
95 新条款为 "A court may decline to exercise its admiralty jurisdiction in any proceedings instituted or to be instituted, if it is of the opinion that any other court in the Republic or any other court or any arbitrator, tribunal, or body elsewhere will exercise jurisdiction in respect of the said proceedings, and that it is more appropriate that the proceedings be adjudicated upon by any such other court or by such arbitrator, tribunal or body."
96 以上内容参见Madeleine de Swardt, "NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE IN SOUTH AFRICAN LAW", Shipping Law Unit of the Faculty of Law in June 1994
97 Québec Civil Code Article 3135, provides that "[e]ven though a Québec authority has jurisdiction to hear a dispute, it may exceptionally and on an application by a party, decline jurisdiction if it considers that the authorities of another country are in a better position to decide." See Art. 3135 Civ. Code Que. (2001).
98 “晚近日本最高法院（最高裁判所）之见解已渐趋弹性，亦已接受英美法上法庭不便利原则之精神”，见刘铁铮、陈荣传著，《国际私法论》，三民书局，1991年版，691页注2
99 Michiko Goto et al. v. Malaysian Airline System Berhad, (1983) 26 Japanese Annual of International Law, P 122
100 Sei Mukoda et al. v. Boeing Co., 604 Hanrei taimuzu 138 (Tokyo Dist. Ct., June 20, 1986), reprinted in 31 Japanese Ann. Int'l L. 216 (1988).
101 "[s]uch special circumstances exist where, in light of the concrete facts of the case concerned, sustaining the Japanese court's jurisdiction would result in contradicting the ideas of promoting impartiality between the parties and fair and prompt administration of justice."
102 See Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS, Texas International Law Journal, 2002, P 487
103 林欣、李琼英 《国际私法》，中国人民大学出版社。1998年第1版，117页
104 See Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion: A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, 16 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 455, 490-509 (1994)
105 例如Wilhelm Wengler 于1959年就建议德国法吸收不方便法院原则。
106 OLG Nurnberg IPRspr. 1960/61 No. 207; 1961 AWD 18.; see FN 144 of Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS
107 OLG Frankfurt, Praxis des Internationalen Privat-und-Verfahrens- Rechts [IPRax], 3 (1983), 294.; see FN 145 of Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS
108 See Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion: A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, 16 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. (1994)
109 参见胡永庆，“不方便法院原则”比较研究，《诉讼法论丛》第4卷，法律出版社2000年4月版，510页
110见胡振杰，“不方便法院说比较研究”，《法学研究》2002年第4期，141页
111 盛勇强，“涉外民事诉讼管辖权冲突的国际协调”，《人民司法》1993年第9期，31页
112 刘振江，《涉外民事经济法律研究》，中山大学出版社1991年版，425－439页
113广东省高级人民法院(1995)粤法经二监字第3号民事裁定书
114 赵相林、杜新丽，《中国国际私法立法问题研究》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年10月第一版，532－533页
115 见胡振杰，“不方便法院说比较研究”，《法学研究》2002年第4期，144－149页
116 参见奚晓明，“不方便法院制度的几点思考”，法学研究2002年第1期，85－87页
117 李祥俊，“论国际民事诉讼程序中的不方便法院原则”，当代法学2001年第4期，61页
1、 徐昕/译 《英国民事诉讼规则》，中国法制出版社，2001年1月北京第一版；
2、 杰弗里.C.哈泽德 米歇尔.塔鲁伊著，张茂译 《美国民事诉讼法导论》，中国政法大学出版社，1998年9月第一版
3、 林欣、李琼英 《国际私法》，中国人民大学出版社。1998年第1版
4、 张茂，《美国国际民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社，1999年第一版
5、 蔡彦敏、洪浩著，《正当程序法律分析》，中国政法大学出版社，2001年4月第一版；
6、 李旺，《国际诉讼竞合》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年第1版
7、 沈达明，《比较民事诉讼法初论》，中信出版社，1991年第一版
8、 赵相林、杜新丽，《中国国际私法立法问题研究》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年10月第一版
9、 J.H.C.Morris，李东来译，《法律冲突法》，中国对外翻译出版公司，1990年9月第一版
10、 刘铁铮、陈荣传著，《国际私法论》，三民书局，1991年版
11、 王军主编，《国际私法案例教程》，中国政法大学出版社，1999年3月第一版
英文
1、 Richard H. Field, Materials For A Basic Course In Civil Procedure, University Case Book Series, The Foundation Press Inc.,1978
John O'Brien Smith's Conflict of Laws, Cavendish Publishing Limited,2nd
2、 Edition, 1999
3、 Prof. Solum，International Business Litigation，Summer 2001，2001暑期Summer School教材
4、 Mary Kay Kane，Civil Procedure，West Nutshell Series，法律出版社，2001年2月第一版
参考论文：
中文
1、 胡永庆，“不方便法院”原则比较研究，《诉讼法论丛》第4卷，法律出版社2000年4月版
2、 李祥俊，“论国际民事诉讼程序中的不方便法院原则”，《当代法学》2001年第4期
3、 刘卫翔、郑自文 “国际民事诉讼中不方便法院原则论”，《法学评论》1997年第4期
4、 胡振杰，“不方便法院说比较研究”，《法学研究》2002年第4期
5、 盛勇强，“涉外民事诉讼管辖权冲突的国际协调”，《人民司法》1993年第9期
6、 奚晓明，“不方便法院制度的几点思考”，《法学研究》2002年第1期
7、 李祥俊，“从印度博帕尔毒气泄漏案看不方便法院原则”，《中国青年政治学院学报》，2001年9月，第20卷第5期
8、 刘仁山，“加拿大国际私法的发展及其对我国的启示”，《中国法学》2002年第2期
英文
1、 Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal
2、 Peter J. Carney, International Forum Non Conveniens: "Section 1404.5" A Proposal in the Interest of Sovereignty, Comity, and Individual Justice, American University Law Review, December 1995
3、 Christopher Speer, THE CONTINUED USE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS: IS IT JUSTIFIED? Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 1993
4、 Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS, Texas International Law Journal, Summer 2002
5、 Madeleine de Swardt, "NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE IN SOUTH AFRICAN LAW", Shipping Law Unit of the Faculty of Law in June 1994
6、 Jeffrey M. Eilender, "FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND COMPREHENSIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE COVERAGE SUITS", the Columbia Law Revision Association, Inc. 1990
1 又称“压制或无理取闹”标准
2 Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, by Herry Campell Black, 1979, West Publishing Co., P589. The Original Sentence is "discretionary power of court to decline jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of justice would be better served if the action were brought and tried in another forum".
3 以美国为例，只有在对当事人具有personal jurisdiction或对诉讼请求具有subject matter jurisdiction时，法院才可以审理某项诉讼。
4 此即所谓替代法院（alternative forum），一般位于另一个法域，可以是另一个国家，也可以是另一个州（如美国）。如果替代法院与原审法院位于同一个法域中，一般可直接通过制定法调整管辖冲突的情况。（具体讨论见下文）
5 又称“压制或无理取闹”标准
6 Robert Braucher, The Inconvenient Federal Forum, 60 HARV.L.REV.908 (1946-1947); from the FN13, Justice Marshall's opinion regarding Piper Aircraft v. Reyno case
7 即苏格兰法院扣押外国人的财产，迫使其来苏格兰参加诉讼。
8 Williamson v. The North Eastern Railway Company, 21 Scot. L. Rep. 421，见李旺《国际诉讼竟合》110页
9 1892 Sess. Cas.at 665 (Scot. 1st Div.)
10 The Plea can never be sustained unless the court is satisfied that there is some other tribunal, having competent jurisdiction, in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and fort the ends of juristice. (P 668)
11 La Societe du Gaz V. La Societe de Navigation, 见李旺“国际诉讼竞合”110页
12 J.Story (1779-1845)，美国最高法院法官，曾任哈佛大学法学院兼职教授。
13 J. Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 中国对外翻译出版公司1990年译本，510页。
14 Hilton V. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163-164 (1895)
15 此三原则为：“（1） 每个国家法律在其政府范围内有效，并约束其管辖下的所有人，但在本国范围外无效； （2） 在一国政府范围内的任何人，不论是久居还是暂住，都应视为该国的居民； （3） 各国君主都应按礼让原则行事，使在一国政府范围内取得的权利可以到处保持其效力，只要这些权利不会对其政府及其国民的权力或权利造成损害。”
16 Harold Kleinmann, Admiralty Suits Involving Foreigners, 31 Tex. L Rev. 889,890 (1952-53)
17 Willendson V. Forsoket, 29 F. Cas. 1283 (No. 17,682)
18 张茂，《美国国际民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社，1999年第一版，98页
19 Gardner V. Thomas, 14 Johns. 134 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1817)
20 Foss V. Richards, 139 A. 313 (M.E. 1927)
21 Jackson & Sons V. Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co., 168 A. 895 (N. H. 1930)
22 Universal Adjustment Corp. V. Middland Bank, 184 N.E. 152 (Mass 1933)
23 "the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law",29 Colum.L.Rev. 1, 21 (1929)
24 Canada Malting Co. V. Paterson S.S., 285 U.S. 413 (1932)
25 314 U.S. 44 (1941)
26 Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947)
27 Erie R. Co V. Tompkins,本案例被称为Erie问题，即在具体案例中是适用州法还是联邦法律的问题。
28 "An interest to be considered, and the one likely to be most pressed, is the private interest of the litigant. Important considerations are the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. There may also be questions as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained. " "Factors of public interest also have place in applying the doctrine. Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home."330 U.S. 508,509, see P848 of Richard H. Field, Materials For A Basic Course In Civil Procedure, University Case Book Series, The Foundation Press Inc.,1978
29 Koster V. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947)
30 “当法院发现为了重大司法公正的利益，诉讼应在另一法院审理时，该法院可根据适当的条件中止或解除全部或部分诉讼。”
31 Footnotes 46, Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany.
32 28 U.S.C. 1404 (a) (1948),the statute provides, "For the convenience of parties, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought."
33 376 U.S. 612 (1964)
34 Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252 (1981)
35 苏格兰法当时还不承认侵权法项下的严格责任，且只有死者亲属才能提起wrongful death这一诉讼请求。
36 在美国法中，只有最高院发出certiorari的案件才能得到最高院的审理。这些案件一般是具有典型意义的或存在非常重大的法律问题的案件。
37 Footnote 74, Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany
38 例如Creative Technology Ltd. V. Aztech System Pet. Ltd., by U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 61 F.3d 696 (1995); 以及Mercier V. Sheraton Internation Inc., 981 F.2d 1345 (1992)等。
39 见林欣、李琼英 《国际私法》，中国人民大学出版社。1998年第1版，112页。
40 634 F. Supp. 842 (S.D.N.Y 1986), modified 809 F.2d. 195 (2d Cir), cert. Denied, 484 U.S. 871 (1987)
41 Tramp Oil & Marine, Ltd. V. M/V Mermaid I, 743 F.2d 48, 50 (1st Cir. 1984)
42 Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 255-256 (1981)
43 Certiorari No. 80-883
44 刘卫翔、郑自文 “国际民事诉讼中不方便法院原则论”，《法学评论》1997年第4期，46页。
45 见前述吉尔伯特判决。
46 Footnote 173, Peter J. Carney, International Forum Non Conveniens: "Section 1404.5" A Proposal in the Interest of Sovereignty, Comity, and Individual Justice, American University Law Review, December 1995
47 Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 260 (1981)
48 "the ultimate inquiry is where trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice."
49 Footnote 6,7 of Christopher Speer, THE CONTINUED USE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS: IS IT JUSTIFIED? Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 1993
50 see part II E.1 of Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal
51 David Boyce, Foreign Plaintiffs and Forum Non Conveniens: Going Beyond Reyno, 64 Tex.L.Rev. 196-204 (1985), see Footnote 20 of Christopher Speer, THE CONTINUED USE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS: IS IT JUSTIFIED? Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 1993
52 Blair, "the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law"， supra note 3, Blair argues that an effective means of dealing with the problems of calendar congestion is wider use of the inherent discretionary power of courts to grant dismissals of cases based on forum non conveniens.
53 Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. 507. "[a] plaintiff sometimes is under temptation to resort to a strategy of forcing the trial at a most inconvenient place for an adversary, even at some inconvenience to himself."
54 International Shoe Co. V. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)
55 当被告与法院地之间有最低限度联系，且对其管辖的行使不会违反“传统的公平审理和实质性公正的概念”时，行使管辖权不会违反宪法的正当程序原则。
56 如Ashai Metal Industry Co., Ltd V. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (1987)
57 例如，1955年美国伊利诺伊州长臂管辖法规定，在对人诉讼中，下列案件可向州外的个人和公司送达传票和诉讼文书：（1）任何在该州的交易；（2）在该州进行的侵权行为；（3）对在该州的不动产享有所有权、使用或占有者；（4）订立契约，对在该州的任何人、财产或风险提供保险者。
58 林欣、李琼英 《国际私法》，中国人民大学出版社。1998年第1版，74页。
59 Gary Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, Kluwer (3rd ed. 1996), P 330
60 115 Wash.2d 123, 794 P.2d 1272 (1990)
61 Dow Chemical Co. v. Castro Alfaro, 786 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. 1990)。此案中Castro及其他81位哥斯达黎加公民在美国提起诉讼，声称其遭受了DBCP杀虫剂的伤害，要求损害赔偿。初审法院以不方便法院原则拒绝受理，最高法院推翻了初审法院的裁定。
62 罗伯逊教授分析了Macedo V. Boeing Co.一案和Pain V. United Technologies Co.一案后得出了上述结论。见“An object Lesson”363页
63 Currie, "Change of Venue and the Conflict of Laws".L.Rev. 405 (1955)
64 Dow Chemical Co. v. Castro Alfaro, 786 S.W.2d 674 & 686(Tex. 1990)
65当法院通过强制令制止外国的诉讼时，并非试图支配外国法院，因为“强制令不是向法院，而是向当事人”发出的。但是由于发出强制令的效果是干预在另一管辖区域内的诉讼，所以“应当非常审慎地行使这种权力，避免对另一法院哪怕是表面的不正当干预”。因为制止外国法院的诉讼的强制令可能往往是难以执行的，所以“毫无疑问，英国法院如果中止一个诉讼的话，最通常的情况总是中止英国法院的诉讼。”
66 沈达明，《比较民事诉讼法初论》（上册），中信出版社1991年版，24－32页
67 [1987] AC 460
68在英国的原告是国外的被告，或英国的被告在国外是原告的情况，和同一个人在两国均为原告这种情况之间，法院更不愿意在前一种情况下中止的英国的诉讼或制止外国的诉讼。据说这是因为诉讼的中止或强制令的结果会使被中止或被禁止的一方当事人在其不可能享有相等支配权的诉讼中限于充当被告。
69 [1906] 1 K.B 141, see Note 139 of Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal
70 [1936] 1 KB 382 (the proceedings on jurisdiction); the subsequent trial and appeal were reported at [1936] 1 All ER 206
71 John O'Brien, Smith's Conflict of Laws, Cavendish Publishing Limited,2nd Edition, 1999, Page 200
72 Atlantic Star, [1974] AC 436; [1973] All ER 175 (Lords Reid, Wilberforce and Kilbrandon forming the majority; Lords Simon and Morris in the minority)
73 Macshannon v. Rockware Glass Ltd., [1978] App. Cas. 795 (appeal taken from Q.B)
74 John O'Brien, Smith's Conflict of Laws, Cavendish Publishing Limited,2nd Edition, 1999, Page 202
75 参见李旺《国际诉讼竟合》84页；John O'Brien, Smith's Conflict of Laws, Page 202
76 [1984] App Cas 411
77 不在英格兰的被告原则上英格兰法院并不能行使对人管辖权，但根据最高法院规则第十一条（RSC Order XI）第1条（1）的规定，当起诉时被告不在英格兰时，英格兰法院可根据原告申请得以自由裁量权许可在外国对被告送达传票，从而对该案享有管辖权。
78 [1987] App Case 460-461
79 徐昕/译 《英国民事诉讼规则》，中国法制出版社，2001年1月北京第一版，149页
80 G.C.Cheshire & P.M.North, Private International Law 205 (11th ed. 1987); see note 128 of Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion- A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in US, UK and Germany, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal.
81 John O'Brien, Smith's Conflict of Laws, Cavendish Publishing Limited,2nd Edition, 1999, Page 203
82 Jackson, Enforcement of Maritime Claims Lloyd's of London Press, 1985, P 112-114
83 参见Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS, Texas International Law Journal, 2002
84 参见李旺《国际诉讼竟合》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年第一版，45页
85 见赖紫宁，“国际民事诉讼管辖权的根据及其新发展”
86 J.P. McEvoy, International Litigation: Canada, Forum Non Conveniens and the Anti-Suit Injunction, 17 Advocs. Q. 1, 5 (1995)
87 刘仁山，“加拿大国际私法的发展及其对我国的启示”，中国法学2002年第2期，179页
88 Amchem Prods. Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers' Comp. Bd.), [1993] S.C.R. (Can.).
89 Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS, Texas International Law Journal, Summer 2002, P 482-484
90 胡振杰，“不方便法院说比较研究”，《法学研究》2002年第4期，140页
91 Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co. v. Fay (1988) 79 A.L.R. 9 (Austl.).
92见胡振杰，“不方便法院说比较研究”，《法学研究》2002年第4期，141页
93 Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS, Texas International Law Journal, Summer 2002, P 486
94 原条款为"A court may decline to exercise its admiralty jurisdiction in any proceedings instituted or to be instituted, if it is of the opinion that the action can more appropriately be adjudicated upon by another court in the Republic or by any other court, tribunal or body elsewhere."
95 新条款为 "A court may decline to exercise its admiralty jurisdiction in any proceedings instituted or to be instituted, if it is of the opinion that any other court in the Republic or any other court or any arbitrator, tribunal, or body elsewhere will exercise jurisdiction in respect of the said proceedings, and that it is more appropriate that the proceedings be adjudicated upon by any such other court or by such arbitrator, tribunal or body."
96 以上内容参见Madeleine de Swardt, "NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE IN SOUTH AFRICAN LAW", Shipping Law Unit of the Faculty of Law in June 1994
97 Québec Civil Code Article 3135, provides that "[e]ven though a Québec authority has jurisdiction to hear a dispute, it may exceptionally and on an application by a party, decline jurisdiction if it considers that the authorities of another country are in a better position to decide." See Art. 3135 Civ. Code Que. (2001).
98 “晚近日本最高法院（最高裁判所）之见解已渐趋弹性，亦已接受英美法上法庭不便利原则之精神”，见刘铁铮、陈荣传著，《国际私法论》，三民书局，1991年版，691页注2
99 Michiko Goto et al. v. Malaysian Airline System Berhad, (1983) 26 Japanese Annual of International Law, P 122
100 Sei Mukoda et al. v. Boeing Co., 604 Hanrei taimuzu 138 (Tokyo Dist. Ct., June 20, 1986), reprinted in 31 Japanese Ann. Int'l L. 216 (1988).
101 "[s]uch special circumstances exist where, in light of the concrete facts of the case concerned, sustaining the Japanese court's jurisdiction would result in contradicting the ideas of promoting impartiality between the parties and fair and prompt administration of justice."
102 See Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS, Texas International Law Journal, 2002, P 487
103 林欣、李琼英 《国际私法》，中国人民大学出版社。1998年第1版，117页
104 See Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion: A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, 16 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 455, 490-509 (1994)
105 例如Wilhelm Wengler 于1959年就建议德国法吸收不方便法院原则。
106 OLG Nurnberg IPRspr. 1960/61 No. 207; 1961 AWD 18.; see FN 144 of Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS
107 OLG Frankfurt, Praxis des Internationalen Privat-und-Verfahrens- Rechts [IPRax], 3 (1983), 294.; see FN 145 of Ronald A. Brand, COMPARATIVE FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS
108 See Alexander Reus, Judicial Discretion: A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, 16 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. (1994)
109 参见胡永庆，“不方便法院原则”比较研究，《诉讼法论丛》第4卷，法律出版社2000年4月版，510页
110见胡振杰，“不方便法院说比较研究”，《法学研究》2002年第4期，141页
111 盛勇强，“涉外民事诉讼管辖权冲突的国际协调”，《人民司法》1993年第9期，31页
112 刘振江，《涉外民事经济法律研究》，中山大学出版社1991年版，425－439页
113广东省高级人民法院(1995)粤法经二监字第3号民事裁定书
114 赵相林、杜新丽，《中国国际私法立法问题研究》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年10月第一版，532－533页
115 见胡振杰，“不方便法院说比较研究”，《法学研究》2002年第4期，144－149页
116 参见奚晓明，“不方便法院制度的几点思考”，法学研究2002年第1期，85－87页
117 李祥俊，“论国际民事诉讼程序中的不方便法院原则”，当代法学2001年第4期，61页