The Hague convention on jurisdiction and judgments : the way forward

This article analyses the proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments, which has been the subject of lengthy and ongoing negotiations. The issues that continue to divide the parties centre on differences between approaches to jurisdiction broadly similar to those used in Europe, and the approach used in the United States. The most comprehensive draft of the Hague Convention starts from a European approach, but makes a number of concessions to the US approach. The United States has rejected this draft, and the parties appear to have accepted this rejection and are now discussing whether a narrower convention can be drafted upon which the parties can reach consensus. The article argues that the broad draft convention was a sound one, that it made all of the concessions to the US approach that were warranted, and that the goal of harmonising world approaches to jurisdiction in civil cases would be better promoted by adopting the broader convention, if necessary without the participation of the United States