일본의 국제재판관할 법제화 동향과 미국 및 EU의 규범과의 비교 -인터넷 분쟁의 국제재판관할권을 중심으로-

Abstract

Private International Act looks to geography when determining international jurisdiction to adjudicate. But in the internet geographical borders of countries can be ignored. A question arises as to whether the traditional Private International Act rules on determining international jurisdiction to adjudicate are to solve the international jurisdiction issues arising from international disputes in the internet. It is difficult to answer this question. Because the international rules on determining international jurisdiction to adjudicate is still a matter of debate. The problem of international jurisdiction on internet is the very basic problem to settle dispute related with internet. However, there is no established rule and written domestic law about international jurisdiction. The present Japanese rules of international adjudicative jurisdiction authorized by Supreme Court, are to apply the provisions for internal jurisdiction unless there are exceptional circumstances from the viewpoint of equal treatment of parties and proper and prompt court proceedings. The present rules appear to be pradoxical. The rules were originally introduced to achieve predictability, like the Brussels Regulation. However, they were modified by the reservation of exceptional circumstances. The reservation has become a real part of rules and has made the present rules flexible and filled with broad discretion, like the U.S case law on jurisdiction. Now the Ministry of Justice of Japan is preparing to a law-making project on international adjudicative jurisdiction. They can gain predictability on international adjudicative jurisdiction by the possible statutory rules from the project.