The Judgments Convention establishes a list of jurisdictional filters, at least one of which must be satisfied for the judgment to circulate. One of those is the implied consent or submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court of origin. While submission is a common jurisdictional basis in international litigation, its definition and treatment vary significantly across states, whether to establish the jurisdiction of the court of origin or as a jurisdictional filter at the enforcement stage in the requested court. This diversity is most evident with respect to the mechanics and consequences of objecting to jurisdiction to avoid submission. The Judgments Convention adopts a variation on an existing approach, arguably the least complex one, in pursuit of its goal to provide predictability for parties involved in cross-border litigation. This contribution canvasses the various approaches to submission in national law with a view to highlighting the points of convergence and divergence and revealing significant complexities associated with some approaches. It then examines how the text in the Convention came to be adopted and whether it is likely to achieve its purpose.

中文翻译：

---

提交作为管辖权依据和 HCCH 2019 判决公约

《判决公约》建立了一份司法过滤器清单，必须至少满足其中一个过滤器才能使判决传阅。其中之一是被告默示同意或服从原审法院的管辖权。虽然提交是国际诉讼中常见的管辖权依据，但其定义和处理因国家而异，无论是确立原审法院的管辖权还是作为被请求法院执行阶段的管辖权过滤器。这种多样性在反对管辖权以避免提交的机制和后果方面最为明显。《判决公约》对现有方法采取了一种变体，可以说是最简单的方法，为了实现其为参与跨境诉讼的各方提供可预测性的目标。本文稿探讨了国内法中提交的各种方法，以突出趋同点和分歧点，并揭示与某些方法相关的重大复杂性。然后审查公约中的案文是如何获得通过的，以及它是否有可能实现其目的。