A Study On The "Effects" Test For Personal Jurisdiction Of The United States Courts

"Effects" test is a very important part in the special jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the judgment standard,it is made up of "minimum contact" standards development,both "actual control" principle thought connotation,mainly used to solve the "effect" type case.In the application of the "effect" test,the United States courts have different understandings of "the defendant’s behavior should be directed against the court",resulting in differences in practical application.The Supreme Court of the United States has made active efforts to apply conditions for uniform standards.This paper mainly studies and discusses how the "effects"criterion applies to the American courts.The introduction part explains the background,significance,research methods and current situation of the research.The first chapter introduces the theoretical basis of the "effect" test.The cae of Pennoyer v.Neff identified the "presence" for the court to exercise the case on the basis of personal jurisdiction,while the case of the International Shoe Co.v.Washington builds the "minimum contact" test as the court of jurisdiction basis,while the "effects" test theory includes both the"actual control" principle established by the former case and the principle of minimum contact" in the later case.The second chapter introduces the application of the "effect" test.The "effects" criterion applies the "effects" type case,which is embodied in the type of defamation cases and the type of intellectual property infringement cases.The basis of the judgment is that the defendant is not the resident of the forum state,the defendant has carried out intentional torts,the plaintiff feels the "effect" in the court state and the defendant’s action is aimed at the court state.The United States courts have different understanding on the forth elements.The third chapter describes the federal Supreme Court’s attempt to clarify the "effects"test.In Walden’s case the.court decided that the defendant behavior must be aimed at the forum state itself.However,the court still use the traditional analysis method in the end,which failed to clarify the test.The fourth chapter compares the relevant legal systems of China and the United States.Chinese courts usually determine the jurisdiction based on the lex loci delicti theory,which always causes confusion.Chinese law should distinguish the different type of intentional tort cases so that the courts can apply the proper law.Conclusion part summarizes the full text content and once again raise the central thesis of this article:"effects" test should be applied if the defendant causes "effects" willfully in the forum state and it will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.It is more maneuverable to explore the intention of the accused defendant than to explore the directivity of the accused behavior.