A Study On The Effect Test In Jurisdiction In U.S.

International civil jurisdiction is the core of international civil litigation.The determination of the jurisdiction of international civil action is directly related to the initiation of the proceedings,the hearing and the determination of the admissibility and enforcement(especially by countries other than those who made the decision)and a series of follow-up procedures and substantive issues.The jurisdiction bases,or the bases of jurisdiction,are the grounds for the courts of a country having the right to hear civil and commercial cases with foreign elements.The determination of jurisdiction bases has important basic significance to the determination of international civil jurisdiction.The effect test is actually a basis or basis for the exercise of jurisdiction in the United States courts,which can be divided into two main types: The effect test as the basis for the exercise of the subject-matter jurisdiction,And the effect test as basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.There are different modes of application in judging the two types of jurisdiction,but the basic principle is the same: the jurisdiction is exercised on the extraterritorial effects or the harmful consequences of the extraterritorial activities.In foreign-related antitrust litigation and foreign-related securities litigation cases,the courts of the United States generally apply the effect test to judge whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction over the relevant cases.The first case in which the United States Court decided on the merits of the case was the Aluminum Company of American(1945).Since then,the United States court in the case Schoenbaum(1968)for the first time apply the effect test to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over foreign-related securities fraud litigation.In these two landmark cases,more than half a century later,in the field of foreign-related antitrust,the Court put forward in practice the international comity,foreseeable,substantive impact to improve the applicable rules of the effect test;In the foreign securities fraud litigation,the court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the case has undergone a " effect test–conduct test-effect & conduct test" changes.Until 2010,in the United States Supreme Court for the first time involved in foreign securities litigation Morrison case,Justice Scalia denied the Securities Exchange Act 10-b clause of the terms of the jurisdiction of the nature.Morrison case quickly spread to the field of foreign antitrust litigation,2011,the US Federal Court of the Third Circuit in China Minmetals Corp.case,also denied some clause of "Foreign Trade Antitrust Promotion Act," has a jurisdictional nature,Exactly the same as Morrison case.However,with the "Dodd-Frank Act" based on the results in the above areas as a basis for exercise subject-matter jurisdiction,Whether U.S.court can still base on the rules mentioned above to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction in the future remains to be the test of time.In the civil tort litigation,the effect is based on the US courts to determine the basis for personal jurisdiction.The famous International Shoes case has opened the new era of personal jurisdiction of the United States: to analyze the "minimum connection standard".After that,scholars have also divided the personal jurisdiction into general jurisdiction and special jurisdiction,Where the general jurisdiction has a prerequisite for “sustained and systematic activity”,and the effect test is therefore based on the development of special jurisdictions.The effect test became a basis for personal jurisdiction in 1984,the Calder case,the US Supreme Court found in the case,as long as the defendant in the state has the out-of-state activity but causes an in-state harmful effect on the plaintiff(Who is the residence of the forum),then the court has personal jurisdiction over the case.This is based on the analysis of the facts of the case,and proposed the rules of the jurisdiction itself has a great ambiguity.The lower court had made great effort to make the rules clear in application of the Calder effect test,but still have difficulty in making a clear and operational rule,and there still many problems remained unsolved.Until Walden(2014),the Supreme Court of the United States has again on the issue of using the effect test analysis to exercising personal jurisdiction on non-resident tort case.And finally,the court set a limitation of the Calder effect test.Although the specific application of different models,the United States courts in the application of the basis for the exercise of jurisdiction in the practice of the case presents a clear trend of limiting the exercise of these the two types of jurisdiction bases.International Civil Jurisdiction Basis is directly related to a country in the international civil procedure in the full and reasonable exercise of jurisdiction.Therefore,it is of great significance to timely adjust and enrich the basis of jurisdiction in international civil litigation according to the changes and needs of social reality.In addition,since the jurisdiction of international law and the jurisdiction of domestic law has a very different meaning and role,therefore,while a country determining the basis of international civil jurisdiction,it must value it from the perspective of international law.Although the exercise of effect test in acquiring jurisdiction in the United States has shown the “long-arm” character of its jurisdiction,and those cases and rules showed a lack of predictability and operational shortcomings.However,this does not mean that the effect test has no reference value for other countries.The effect test is based on breaking the traditional international civil litigation to the defendant’s domicile as the basic principle of the jurisdiction of the basis for the establishment of ideas,embodies the "brunt of harm" as an element of concern;What’s more,based on the United States special federal state structure,Considerations in the allocation of jurisdiction have some degree of similarity to international civil litigation.Based on the above two points,in the process of improving our country’s international civil jurisdiction system,we can make a distinction while get something form the effect test in the United States.In particular,firstly,it should be a distinction to apply the effect test according to the type of cases.In the civil lawsuits(from the private enforcement of economic supervision law),the effect test should be taken as the main jurisdiction basis,and the effect test should be supplemented in the civil tort litigation cases.Secondly,the adoption of the effect test should be limited,to avoid the excessive expansion of jurisdiction.