Opinion ID: 433759
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Paramount Nationality

Text: 94 We turn now to the appellants' argument that Laker's nationality requires the United States District Court to defer to the injunctions issued by the courts of the United Kingdom. 95 KLM and Sabena do not dispute the power of the United States District Court to issue the injunction. They contend rather that the district court abused its discretion by issuing an antisuit injunction instead of relinquishing its jurisdiction, staying its proceedings, or adopting some other vehicle of conflict resolution. Appellants are therefore in the contradictory position of supporting the right of English courts to issue an antisuit injunction, but opposing the United States District Court's issuance of the same kind of injunction. The only way appellants can differentiate between the two injunctions is to focus on the nationality of Laker. 96 The similarity of the injunctions is underscored by the way Sabena phrased the issue posed by this case: which sovereign, the United States or Great Britain, has the right to determine whether British law permits Laker to conduct private treble damage actions in the United States. 87 As counsel for Sabena recognized at oral argument, whether British law permits or proscribes certain activities is primarily a matter for the British courts to determine. 88 On parity of reasoning the availability of treble damage actions in United States courts is a question of United States law. Appellants' case thus hinges entirely on the consequences attending the existence in one court of nationality-based jurisdiction over Laker. 97 Appellants attempt to prioritize the authority of the courts to proceed in cases of concurrent jurisdiction by arguing that the nationality of the plaintiff gives the plaintiff's state an inherent advantage which displaces all other jurisdictional bases. They label this principle paramount nationality, and present this as the theory of conflict resolution to be used when concurrent jurisdiction is present: assuming that two or more states exercise jurisdiction over Laker's allegations, the state with jurisdiction over its national must have the paramount right to determine whether and, if so, where litigation by that national may go forward. 89 98 We are asked to recognize an entirely novel rule. Although a court has power to enjoin its nationals from suing in foreign jurisdictions, it does not follow that the United States courts must recognize an absolute right of the British government to regulate the remedies that the United States may wish to create for British nationals in United States courts. The purported principle of paramount nationality is entirely unknown in national and international law. Territoriality, not nationality, is the customary and preferred base of jurisdiction. 90 Moreover, no rule of international law or national law precludes an exercise of jurisdiction solely because another state has jurisdiction. 91 In fact, international law recognizes that a state with a territorial basis for its prescriptive juridsiction may establish laws intended to prevent compliance with legislation established under authority of nationality-based jurisdiction. 92 99 All proposed methods of avoiding conflicts stemming from concurrent jurisdiction indicate that nationality of the parties is only one factor to consider, not the paramount or controlling factor. 93 Appellants have not cited any cases where the principle has been followed as a method of choosing between competing claims of jurisdiction, despite the numerous occasions when the principle could have been decisive. 94 As this paucity of case law implies, significant adverse consequences would attend the adoption of this rule, and we decline to do so. 100 The rationale behind the claim of paramount nationality seems to be that particularly important foreign sovereign prerogatives are infringed when a foreign national sues in domestic courts against the wishes of a foreign state. However, this argument ignores the stronger policy interests of the domestic forum. If a country has a right to regulate the conduct of its nationals, then a fortiori it has the power to regulate the activities of its very governmental organizations, such as its courts, which it establishes and maintains for the purpose of furthering its own public policies. 101 United States courts must control the access to their forums. No foreign court can supersede the right and obligation of the United States courts to decide whether Congress has created a remedy for those injured by trade practices adversely affecting United States interests. Our courts are not required to stand by while Britain attempts to close a courthouse door that Congress, under its territorial jurisdiction, has opened to foreign corporations. Under the nationality base of jurisdiction, Britain can punish its corporations for walking through that courthouse door, but it cannot close the American door. Thus, although British courts can sanction their citizens for resorting to United States antitrust remedies, United States courts are not required to cut off the availability of the remedy. 102 The position advanced by appellant would require United States courts to defer to British policy when there is no statement by Congress that it does not wish the courts to provide the remedy. Appellants' argument that there is no absolute duty to exercise jurisdiction has no merit in this context. 95 It is based on abstention and forum non conveniens cases, which in turn are premised on the availability of a second forum that can fully resolve the plaintiff's claims. In this case, the English Court of Appeal has admitted that there is no other forum for Laker's claims. 103 Besides lacking any basis in national or international law, and besides ignoring important domestic interests, the paramount nationality rule would generate more interference than it would resolve. Legislation based on nationality tends to encourage chauvinism and discrimination without enhancing international comity. 96 The paramount nationality rule would be no exception. Foreign plaintiffs in our courts could routinely face public policy challenges in their domestic courts, while our courts would be required to stay proceedings pending foreign authorization. On the other hand, as the district court noted, United States courts could use corporate nationality as a pretext to interject themselves in foreign proceedings involving United States corporations and subsidiaries. 97 104 The paramount nationality rule would also be impractical to administer. It would be difficult or impossible to determine when the nationality of a corporation is sufficiently strong that legitimate territorial contacts should be nullified. 98 There are at least five competing methods of determining nationality of a corporation. 99 Multiple countries could simultaneously assert controlling jurisdiction over one national corporation based, for example, on shareholder nationality, state of incorporation, or other corporate links to a particular forum. There would be no paramount nation in this situation. The conflicts associated with concurrent jurisdiction would continue to confront the courts. 105 Finally, KLM and Sabena are not British nationals. Thus, their claims are fundamentally different from those advanced by British Airways and British Caledonian. Nothing gives KLM or Sabena a supreme right to vindicate the British national interests that may be implicated by Laker's suits. Sabena, at least, is specifically entitled to the protection of United States anti-trust laws under its air services agreement. 100 KLM no doubt would expect the same protection. 101 No rule of paramount nationality should free them from obligation under United States antitrust laws and at the same time protect them from other corporations' violations. Contrary to appellants' arguments, Laker's nationality is clearly an insufficient basis to reverse the district court.