Page 42 - ดุลพาห เล่ม3.indd
P. 42

ดุลพาห




                        (2) International comparison

                        Japanese law does not provide specific rules to coordinate international

               parallel litigations. Nonetheless, there is a possibility that Japanese courts may
               avoid international parallel litigations by self-restricting assertion of international

               jurisdiction pursuant to the special circumstances doctrine under Article 3-9 of the
               JCCP, which is in line with the common law principles of forum non conveniens.

               The Tokyo District Court in the Masaki Bussan case declined to exercise its
               jurisdiction by applying the special circumstances test in the case where there were

               parallel litigations in California and Tokyo .
                                                        100
                        In contrast, the EU adopts the “first to file” doctrine or the lis pendens rules to

               regulate international parallel litigations. Article 29 of the Brussels I (recast) provides
               that, “where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same

               parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the
               court first seised must stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the

               court first seised is established.” This approach gives priority to the court seised first
               to proceed with adjudication and the court seised second must decline jurisdiction in

               favor of the court seised first.


               III. Interests in Jurisdiction


                        In order to assess whether the existing jurisdictional rules are suitable and
               justifiable, it is necessary to identify the policy interests and factors underlying the

               law of jurisdiction. Ralf Michaels summarizes that there are three types of interests
               which can serve as legitimate bases for the establishment and delimitation of

               adjudicatory jurisdiction .
                                      101

               100. Tokyo District Court, January 29, 1991, 1390 Hanji 98. Nishitani, “International Jurisdiction of
                   Japanese Courts,” 272.
               101. See Ralf Michaels, “Jurisdiction, foundations,” chap. J.2 in Encyclopedia of Private International
                   Law, edited by  Jürgen Basedow et al., 1043-1051. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Pub
                   lishing, 2017.


               กันยายน - ธันวาคม ๒๕๖๑                                                       31
   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47