The Exercise Of The Special Jurisdiction Of The United States In International Civil Litigation And China’s Response

With the acceleration of the process of globalization,the trade between China and American enterprises has also increased.Many China enterprises have expanded their industries to the American market.However,with the increase in business activities in the US market,there have been more trade disputes between China and American enterprises.For example,Wultz v.BOC and Elmaliach v.BOC,In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods.Liab.Litig.In these cases,no matter what the outcome of these case are,as long as the lawsuit enters the U.S.court,the defendant will face an unfamiliar litigation environment and bear huge litigation pressure.However,it should be clear that the avoidance of China enterprises from being subject to the jurisdiction of US courts does not mean that China enterprises are evading their responsibilities,but that when a legal dispute does occur,China defendants can accept litigation in the court they are most familiar with and reduce litigation costs.By analyzing many cases in which China enterprises are the defendants tried by US courts,it can be concluded that US courts use specific jurisdiction as the first step to hear cases.Therefore,China enterprises should fully understand the mechanism of the specific jurisdiction,arrange the behavior of the enterprise,thereby reducing the chance of being subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts.This paper starts with a typical case in which China enterprises are under the jurisdiction of US courts,and analyzes how US courts use specific jurisdiction as the first step in hearing cases with China enterprises as defendants,and how specific jurisdiction affects the development of China enterprises in the American market,thereby pointing out the importance of understanding the mechanisms by which specific jurisdiction is exercised.The specific jurisdiction has experienced a long history,Von Mehren and Troutman proposed a new classification method for personal jurisdiction : general jurisdiction(sometimes called all-purpose jurisdiction)and specific jurisdiction(sometimes called case-linked jurisdiction).Since the Supreme Court of the United States first recognized and used general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction in the Helicopters Nacionales De Colombia v.Hall,the new classification method gradually replaced the old classification method of In Personam Jurisdiction,In Rem Jurisdiction and Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction.Since then,specific jurisdiction has been maturely applied by U.S.courts and has become an efficient and convenient way for U.S.courts to administer non-resident defendants.With the deepening of trade between China enterprises and the United States,China enterprises have gradually become the object of specific jurisdiction exercised by the US courts.The second chapter focuses on the development of specific jurisdiction,and first analyzes how US courts brought foreign defendants into their courts before the emergence of specific jurisdiction.The United States as a federal country,except for some of the powers handed over to the federation,the rest of the powers are exercised independently by the states.Therefore,in order to reduce the conflict of jurisdiction between the states,the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment delineated a certain boundary for the exercise of power by the states,and then in Pennoyer v.neff,a state court may exercise specific jurisdiction only when a defendant present in the State.A company only can be regarded as “presence” in its place of incorporation and the principal place of business.But in the Int’l Shoe Co.v.Wash,specific jurisdiction emerged,and the situation began to change.the Federal Supreme Court replaced the “presence” rule with “Minimum Contacts”rule as the basis for the court to exercise specific jurisdiction.Jurisdiction over a defendant may be exercised even if the defendant does not have a "presence" in the forum state,due process required only that defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.Judging whether specific jurisdiction can be exercised is mainly divided into two steps.The first step is to analyze whether there is a minimum connection between the defendant and the forum,and the second step is to analyze whether the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant is reasonable.In different types of cases,there are also differences in the exercise of specific jurisdiction.The third chapter of this paper analyzes the application of specific jurisdiction in different types of cases,especially in the most typical two types of disputes,namely tort disputes and contract disputes.In addition,although some China enterprises do not have direct trade with the United States,they may use affiliated enterprises to conduct business.Through the case law of the United States,it can be concluded that determining whether there is jurisdiction over the defendant,a US court will usually consider whether the defendant has an alter ego or agent to connect with the United States on its behalf.Therefore,China enterprises should also properly handle the connection with other enterprises,so as to avoid this connection becoming the basis for the jurisdiction of China defendants.Finally,the fourth chapter of this paper analyzes how our country responds to the exercise of the specific jurisdiction of the US courts,mainly from the national and enterprise levels.At the national level,China can use indirect jurisdiction as a defensive measure,combined with the positive means of establishing anti-suit injunctions to deal with jurisdiction.Specifically,in the face of a judgment or ruling made by a US court with a China enterprise as the defendant that needs to be recognized and enforced by a China court,the China court can review whether the jurisdiction exercised by the US court to judge the case is legal.It is believed that the U.S.courts have jurisdiction over China defendants beyond the limits of the exercise of their jurisdiction,then China courts can refuse to recognize and enforce them.In this way,the impact of adverse judgments made on China enterprises can be reduced to a certain extent.In addition,China can establish an anti-suit injunction,which prohibits the jurisdiction of courts of other countries for cases that have important interests in my country.This is a relatively radical means of safeguarding my country’s interests.Therefore,it needs to be exercised cautiously to avoid countermeasures from other countries.