Comment On The Forum Non Conveniens Issues In The Grace Ocean International Co.,Ltd. Case

The principle of “Forum Non Conveniens” originated in common law countries,but with the continuous development of economic globalization,frequent cross-border personnel movements,international civil and commercial activities have increased significantly,and collisions and conflicts of jurisdiction of civil and commercial cases between jurisdictions are common.In this context,if it is based solely on the interests of one country and disregards international comity and cooperation,the conflict of jurisdictions will be exacerbated.In order to eliminate and reduce conflicts of jurisdiction,more and more countries have chosen to accept and recognize the forum non conveniens principle.In China’s "Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the" Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China "(hereinafter referred to as the" Interpretation "),Article 532 stipulates that the people’s court rejected six plaintiffs’ indictments on the grounds of inconvenience.This is a useful exploration of the application of the inconvenient court principle in China.However,due to the influence of the statute law tradition in our country’s procedural law system,in judicial practice,when Chinese courts apply this provision to judge cases,it is often difficult to draw clear conclusions because the content of the clauses is unclear.This article starts from the case of Grace Ocean International Co.,Ltd.’s contract dispute,and then make an in-depth consideration of the inconvenience of the court’s determination.The first part introduces the basic situation of the case.It sorts out the detailed case situation and the basic information of both parties.The main points of contention are whether there are "significant difficulties" in the jurisdiction of Chinese courts and "more convenient" jurisdiction in Korean courts.The second part discusses the identification of "significant difficulties" in this case,and expounds in detail the relevant theories and the general manifestations of major difficulties in identifying the facts and applicable laws in international legislation.After referring to the relevant theories of the common law system and summing up with typical cases,the authors summed up the clear criteria for judging the inconvenience of the courts in the case of major difficulties,and then turned to the analysis of the case,pointing out the opinions obtained in the ruling of the case and the corresponding problems and omissions.The third part discusses the determination of "convenient trial".First,it is pointed out that the premise of judging "convenience" is that it has jurisdiction over the case,followed by extraterritorial legislation and international recognition of "convenient" Explain the general standards,and point out that "convenience" and the "difficulty" mentioned above are to some extent two aspects of a problem.The two are related,and then clarify the factors considered and the differences between the standards.Finally,the judgment of "more convenient" in this case is examined,and the issue of the determination of jurisdiction in the ruling and the neglect of convenience in this case are explained.The fourth part proposes suggestions to improve China’s current legislation on the inconvenience of court principles in light of the legal problems in this case.First,the current development of the principle of inconvenient courts in China is described,and the development of the principle of inconvenient courts in China is clarified in combination with relevant judicial practices,and it is pointed out that the relevant judicial practice must be earlier than its explicit provisions.Then,in response to Article 532 of the Interpretation,the provisions of Article(5)(6)are vague,the identification standards are unknown,and the identification standards are missing.Put forward practicable legislative suggestions,such as prudently determining that“major difficulties exist”,clear the situation of denying the foreign courts “have more convenient trials”,and add the application of the court’s principle of initiating the principle,and so on.So that the principle of forum non conveniens can be applied more reasonable in China.