About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

59 Va. J. Int'l L. 97 (2019)
Personal Jurisdiction: The Transnational Difference

handle is hein.journals/vajint59 and id is 103 raw text is: ARTICLE Personal Jurisdiction: The Transnational Difference AUSTEN PARRISH* This Article engages with some of the key debates that have emerged among international law and civil procedure scholars by examining the flurry of recent transnational cases that have become a common feature on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket. It makes three principal contributions. First, it explains how the recent decisions involving personal jurisdiction should be understood within, and partly limited to, their international contexts. Disputes involving non-resident foreign defendants raise different considerations than those involving defendants in the United States, and this Article canvasses those differences. I a concern previously was that courts gave too short shrift to the international aspects of a case, the concern now is that lower courts may make the reverse mistake by overstating the applicability of recent decisions to the domestic, interstate context. Second, it details how international law imposes modest constraints on national court adjudicatoy authority, and pushes back on recent attempts to reimagine public international law. It shows how the Fourth Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States-which asserts that personal jurisdiction in dvil cases is unregulated under international law-advances a position inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of authority. The Restatement's attempt to fashion new customay law and reshape the existing legal regime in the personaljurisdiction arena is problematic, and this Article serves as a counterpoint to that efort. Third, it describes an interplay between unilateral domestic extraterritorial regulation and international lawmaking and aligns personal jurisdiction with the closely-related area of legislative jurisdiction. Constraints on broad jurisdictional assertions in transnational disputes may be one of the predicates necessay to spur U.S. multilateral engagement. * Dean and James H. Rudy Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law. The author is grateful to William Mahoney and Claudio Perez for their research assistance. The article benefited from discussions and feedback from Hannah Buxbaum, Charles Geyh, Alex Mills, Jonathan Nash, Aviva Orenstein, Peter 'Bo' Rutledge, Adam Steinman, and Christopher Whytock. I am grateful for the conversations had at the 31st Sokol Colloquium at the University of Virginia School of Law on the Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States with Chim ne Keitner, Thomas Lee, Ralph Michaels, as well as Bill Dodge, Paul Stephan, and others. I am also grateful to Anthony Colangelo and Carl Cecere, who helped further my thinking on these issues when we collaborated on a recent amicus brief focused on enforcement jurisdiction and international law. Brief of International Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, U.S. v. Microsoft, No. 17- 2 (U.S. Supreme Court) (January 18, 2018).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most