Book Reviews Fawcett, J.J. (ed.). Declining Jurisdiction in Private International Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Pp. lxi, 431. Index. $98. This book consists of a General Report and eighteen National Reports on `Rules for Declining to Exercise Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters: Forum Non Conveniens, Lis Pendens, and Other Rules'. The reports were written for the XIVth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held in August 1994. National Reports were submitted by Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada (common law jurisdictions), Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the province of Quebec, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA. Although the reporters were requested to answer a specific questionnaire, the reports rather vary in length and in detail. The questions referred to forum non conveniens, lis alibi pendens, foreign choice of jurisdiction clauses, arbitration agreements, and restraining foreign proceedings. However, according to the title of the questionnaire, the inquiry was restricted to `civil and commercial matters'. The term, which might appear somewhat vague to a common lawyer, is defined in Art. 1 of the Brussels and Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements. It relates to an ordinary private law matter in contrast with a public law matter, an administrative law matter, matters involving questions of status or legal relationship, wills, succession, bankruptcy or social security. The main part of the book comprises the General Report written by J.J. Fawcett (70 pages). It is an outstanding work on comparative law. For the most part, Fawcett follows the structure of the questionnaire. After some introductory comments on jurisdictional background, the author starts with a section on the subject of forum non conveniens. While staying on a more or less descriptive level, one might sense, reading between the lines, the author's predilection for the concept of forum non conveniens. This predilection becomes apparent in the following section on lis pendens. Having admitted several disadvantages of the forum non conveniens approach (pp. 30-31) Fawcett rather sharply criticizes the so-called first-seized approach as well as the recognition prognosis approach (pp. 34-35, 38-39). This could come as a surprise to civil lawyers who might object that, to a certain extent, Fawcett underestimates the advantages of these concepts. Civil lawyers might argue that the `simplicity' (p. 34) and the `obvious logic' (p. 38) of these approaches pave the way for certainty and predictability of the law. See, e.g., Christoph Dorsel, Forum non conveniens (1996) 176-178 and Peter Huber, Die englische forum-non-conveniens-Doktrin und ihre Anwendung im Rahmen des Europäischen Gerichtsstands- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommens (1994) 145. The next two sections focus on foreign choice of jurisdiction agreements and arbitration agreements. Again, the civil lawyer might be surprised that even in these cases, the judge of a common law country has a certain power to exercise discretion. In the last section, Fawcett explains how states deal with the problems of forum shopping. Apart from pure academic use, the General Report can be recommended to any lawyer in need of a general survey on international jurisdiction and its problems. However, the reader is advised to pay attention to the meaning of the terms `to deny/to decline jurisdiction' and `to stay/suspend/dismiss proceedings' (n.1), which differ even among common law jurisdictions. Kerstin Strick Bonn University
	© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute. This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:32PM