2014/08/

Lecture	  919 August 2014
Junhyok JANG (張埈赫)Sungkyunkwan University (成均館大學校)¢ System	  of	  “rule-­‐like”	  rules:	  speci7ic-­‐connecting-­‐factor-­‐based	  approach	  (e.g.,	  place	  of	  performance,	  place	  of	  tort)	  ¢ System	  of	  an	  abstract	  standard	  (e.g..	  minimum	  contacts,	  reasonableness,	  substantial	  connection)	  that	  relies	  solely	  on	  all-­‐things-­‐considered	  balancing	  	  ¢ 	  Each	  may	  be	  based	  on	  either	  (i)	  the	  idea	  of	  inte
rnational	  allocation	  of	  jurisdiction	  or	  	  	  (ii)	  nationalist	  view	  (e.g.,	  territorialism)2014/08/¢ General	  jurisdiction:	  defendant’s	  domicile	  ¢ Cause-­‐of-­‐action-­‐speci7ic	  special	  jurisdiction:	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  contract	  -­‐>	  place	  of	  performance	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  tort	  -­‐>	  place	  of	  tort	  ¢ Jurisdiction	  over	  related	  claims	  ¢ Jurisdiction	  by	  agreement	  ¢ Jurisdiction	  by	  appearance	  ¢ Exclusive	  jurisdiction¢ A	  system	  of	  rules	  may	  be	  made	  7lexible	  by	  adding	  an	  additional	  (second-­‐stage)	  review	  of	  “balance	  of	  interests,”	  “substantial	  connection,”	  “minimum	  contacts,”	  etc.	  
¢ place-­‐of-­‐tort	  rule	  +	  further	  articulation	  of	  its	  limits	  (e.g.,	  regarding	  place	  of	  preparation,	  	  place	  of	  secondary	  harm)	  	  ¢ place-­‐of-­‐tort	  rule	  +	  Due	  Process	  analysis	  (minimum	  contacts	  and	  reasonableness)	  ¢ place	  of	  tort	  	  +	  forum	  conveniens	  (ad	  hoc	  interest-­‐balancing)	  	  2014/08/¢ Minimum	  contacts	  test	  de7ined	  as	  a	  pure	  all-­‐things-­‐considered	  interest-­‐balancing	  ¢ Restatement	  (Third)	  of	  Foreign	  Relations	  Law	  of	  the	  United	  States	  (1987),	  s.	  421:	  “reasonableness”	  ¢ One	  reading	  of	  Korean	  Private	  International	  Law,	  Article	  2:	  “substantial	  connection”	  (para.	  1)	  	  ¢ A	  system	  of	  rules	  based	  on	  speci7ic	  connecti

ng	  factors	  may	  consist	  of:	  	  	  	  	  (i)	  two	  separate	  regimes	  for	  international	  jurisdiction	  and	  internal	  jurisdiction	  (venue)	  (e.g.,	  Austria,	  Japan,	  England)	  	  	  	  	  or	  	  	  	  	  (ii)	  an	  integrated	  legislation	  that	  applies	  to	  both	  international	  and	  internal	  jurisdiction.	  	  	  	  	  (e.g.,	  Germany,	  pre-­‐2012	  Japan)	  	  2014/08/¢ Different	  dimension	  ¢ Criteria	  may	  be	  the	  same,	  or	  only	  require	  slight	  different

iation.	  
¢ Legislative	  technique:	  	  	  	  (1)	  two	  separate	  sets	  of	  provisions,	  although	  the	  criteria	  often	  overlap,	  or	  	  	  	  	  (2)	  a	  single	  set	  of	  provisions	  having	  “double	  functionality”	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  -­‐>	  How	  to	  secure	  a	  room	  for	  differentiation?	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  With	  an	  explicit	  statutory	  language	  in	  a	  general	  clause?	  Or	  leave	  it	  to	  the	  courts?	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  ¢ German	  Civil	  Procedure	  Code	  of	  1877	  	  	  	  	  (1)	  provided	  for	  criteria	  that	  make	  sense	  to	  both	  international	  jurisdiction	  and	  venue,	  	  	  	  	  (2)	  with	  a	  clear	  legislative	  intent	  of	  double	  functionality.	  
¢ However,	  the	  two	  aspects	  were	  doubtful	  in	  	  	  	  	  (1)	  Japanese	  Civil	  Procedure	  Code	  of	  1890	  and	  Civil	  Procedure	  Act	  of	  2003,	  and	  	  	  	  (2)	  Korean	  Civil	  Procedure	  Code	  of	  1960	  and	  Civil	  Procedure	  Act	  of	  2002	  2014/08/¢ Reverse	  inference	  from	  venue	  rules	  “unless	  there	  are	  special	  circumstances	  that	  demand	  the	  oppo
site	  conclusion”	  	  	  	  (1)	  tentative	  reliance	  on	  venue	  rules	  as	  if	  they	  were	  international	  jurisdiction	  rules,	  	  	  	  (2)	  modi7iable	  in	  the	  7inal	  all-­‐things-­‐considered	  test.	  
¢ Problems	  with	  predictability:	  	  -­‐	  courts	  neglect	  to	  sort	  out	  those	  rules	  that	  deserve	  double	  functionality	  and	  those	  that	  do	  not.	  	  	  -­‐	  courts	  not	  willing	  to	  clarify	  the	  exact	  criteria	  but	  only	  to	  give	  the	  7inal	  answer	  in	  a	  concrete	  case.	  

¢ Abstract	  formula:	  reverse	  inference	  from	  venue	  rules,	  “unless	  there	  are	  special	  circumstances	  that	  demand	  the	  opposite	  conclusion”	  ¢ Practice:	  	  	  	  (1)	  “unless	  …”	  language	  is	  given	  no	  practical	  meaning	  	  	  	  (2)	  courts	  tend	  to	  be	  careful	  in	  referring	  to	  venue	  rules	  	  	  	  -­‐>	  Relatively	  closer	  to	  German	  doctrine/practice?	  	  	  	  -­‐>	  Was	  it	  so	  urgent	  to	  discard	  this	  practice?

2014/08/

The	  courts	  shall	  have	  international	  jurisdiction	  if	  the	  parties	  or	  the	  case	  in	  dispute	  has	  a	  substantial	  connection	  with	  the	  Republic	  of	  Korea.	  In	  determining	  whether	  or	  not	  a	  substantial	  connection	  exists,	  the	  courts	  shall	  follow	  the	  reasonable	  principles	  that	  conform	  to	  the	  idea	  of	  allocation	  of	  international	  jurisdiction.	  
(2) 	  The	  courts	  shall	  determine	  whether	  they	  have	  international	  jurisdiction	  by	  reference	  to	  the	  internal	  law	  provisions	  on	  jurisdiction,	  having	  full	  regard	  to	  the	  special	  characteristics	  of	  internatio
nal	  jurisdiction	  in	  light	  of	  the	  purport	  of	  paragraph	  (1).
(1)¢ Aspirations:	  venue	  provisions	  as	  a	  starting	  point	  +	  further	  judicial	  elaboration	  of	  precise	  rules	  	  	  	  	  	  	  =>	  a	  system	  of	  “rule-­‐like”	  rules	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  moderated	  by	  an	  abstract	  higher	  standard	  	  ¢ Practical	  application	  -­‐	  four	  divergent	  approaches	  	  	  (1)	  pure	  all-­‐things-­‐considered	  test:	  tort,	  matrimonial	  cases	  	  	  (2)	  clear	  de7inition	  of	  criteria:	  forum	  selection	  agreement,	  product	  liability,	  contract,	  jurisdiction	  by	  necessity	  	  	  (3)	  “substantial	  connection”	  as	  an	  additional	  independent	  basis	  	  	  (4)	  revitalization	  of	  the	  modi7ied	  reverse	  inference	  doctrine	  in	  its	  genuine	  form	  2014/08/¢ Facts:	  Mr.	  Kim	  registered	  a	  domain	  name	  “hpweb.com”.	  

HP	  reclaimed	  it	  in	  a	  non-­‐conclusive	  procedure.	  Mr.	  Kim	  sued	  HP	  seeking	  (1)	  its	  return	  	  and	  (2)	  a	  negative	  declarat
ion	  of	  his	  infringement	  of	  HP’s	  U.S.	  trademarks.	  
¢ Seoul	  High	  Court	  (25	  Sep.	  2002):	  denied	  jurisdiction	  	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  Korea	  is	  neither	  (1)	  place	  of	  tort,	  or	  (2)	  place	  of	  perfor
mance	  of	  the	  obligation	  to	  return,	  or	  (3)	  location	  of	  relev
ant	  property.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  (4)	  Nor	  has	  Korea	  	  a	  “substantial	  connection”	  with	  the	  dispute	  (Article	  2	  basis).	  
¢ Sup.	  Ct.:	  upheld	  jurisdiction	  	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  all-­‐things-­‐considered	  balancing	  test	  	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  no	  clear	  de7inition	  of	  the	  limits	  of	  tort	  jurisdiction	  in	  trademark	  infringement	  or	  unfair	  competition	  ¢ Facts:	  U.S.	  citizen	  (domiciled	  in	  Missouri)	  and	  Korean	  woman	  (domiciled	  in	  Korea)	  got	  married	  and	  lived	  in	  Korea	  with	  an	  intention	  to	  reside	  there	  inde7initely.	  Husband	  sued	  wife	  for	  divorce	  before	  a	  Korean	  court.	  
¢ Held:	  upheld	  jurisdiction	  based	  on	  an	  all-­‐things-­‐considered	  balancing	  test,	  which	  included	  place	  of	  celebration	  of	  marriage,	  Missouri	  law	  of	  jurisdiction,	  “hidden	  renvoi”	  from	  Missouri	  law	  ¢ Why	  not	  a	  simple	  “defendant’s	  domicile”-­‐based	  jurisdiction?

2014/08/¢ Article	  2	  is	  too	  dominant.	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  Predictability	  harmed	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  Slow	  development	  of	  law	  ¢ Article	  2	  is	  powerless.	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  Some	  problems	  continue	  regardless	  of	  Article	  2	  (e.g.,	  “reasonable	  connection”	  require
ment	  to	  forum	  selection	  agreement)	  ¢ Confusing	  coexistence	  of	  diverse	  approaches¢ Japan-­‐Korea	  (or	  Korea-­‐Japan)	  Principles	  of	  PIL	  on	  Intellectual	  Property	  Rights	  (2010)	  ¢ Comparative	  study	  of	  the	  Reform	  in	  Japan	  ¢ Commissioned	  report,	  Possible	  Options	  of	  Reforming	  PIL	  (2012-­‐April	  2014)	  ¢ Private	  International	  Law	  Reform	  Committee	  (June	  2014	  -­‐)	  ¢ Public	  hearing	  in	  2015?	  
¢ Scope:	  Proprietary	  matters	  /	  maritime	  matters	  /	  personal,	  family	  and	  succession	  matters	  2014/08/¢ Statement	  of	  purpose	  (“substantial	  connection”)	  ¢ Retention	  of	  “substantial	  connection”-­‐based	  rule	  of	  jurisdiction?	  
¢ Jurisdiction	  by	  necessity	  ¢ Forum	  non	  conveniens	  ¢ Cf.	  Jurisdiction	  over	  related	  actions,	  	  	  	  	  	  Lis	  alibi	  pendens	  	  ¢ General	  jurisdiction	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  domicile	  or	  habitual	  residence	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  legal	  persons	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  activity-­‐based	  general	  jurisdiction?	  
¢ Cause-­‐of-­‐action-­‐speci7ic	  jurisdiction	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  procedural	  de7inition	  of	  ‘place	  of	  performance’?	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  detailed	  provisions	  on	  tort?	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  separate	  provisions	  for	  special	  torts?	  2014/08/¢ Location-­‐of-­‐property	  jurisdiction	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  requirement	  of	  “relevant”	  property?	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  abuse	  of	  right	  	  ¢ Jurisdiction	  over	  related	  actions	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  related	  action	  against	  the	  same	  defendant	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  related	  action	  against	  a	  different	  defendant	  ¢ Jurisdiction	  by	  agreement	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  abolition	  of	  ‘objective	  connection’	  requirement?	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  relaxation	  of	  writing	  requirement?	  

¢ Jurisdiction	  in	  personal,	  family	  and	  succession	  matters	  ¢ Bilateral	  or	  East-­‐Asian	  convention	  on	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  recognition	  of	  foreign	  proceedings	  and	  judgment	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  international	  jurisdiction,	  and	  	  	  	  	  	  -­‐	  applicable	  law	  	  ¢ Coordination	  through	  worldwide	  conventio
ns	  ¢ Deepening	  mutual	  understanding

2014/08/	  	  	  	  	  	  	  jhjang@skku.edu