Abstract

This Article places the recent evolution of U.S. personal jurisdiction in comparative context. Comparativism helps illuminate and explain both the modest convergences and the more pervasive divergences. On the convergences side, the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment of transnational litigation and express invocation of European approaches to personal jurisdiction have helped move general jurisdiction away from the exorbitant “doing business” jurisdiction that seemed previously to be settled U.S. law. But persistent divergences tell the more interesting story. The Court’s refusal to deviate from its commitment to transient jurisdiction, its recent narrowing of specific jurisdiction since 2011, its implicit rejection of pendent-party personal jurisdiction, and its adherence to a strong form of consent-based personal jurisdiction all reveal a stark contrast with other countries’ approaches to personal jurisdiction. That contrast is founded on deep and stubborn ties to American history, political structure, and litigation norms, all of which make broader convergence difficult, if not implausible. For these reasons, U.S. personal-jurisdiction doctrine is more likely to continue to develop on an independent track rather than hew to global trends. Some areas of parallelism might still occur, but substantial convergence is likely to remain elusive.

中文翻译：

---

比较语境中的属人管辖权

摘要

本文将美国属人管辖权的近期演变置于比较背景中。比较主义有助于阐明和解释适度的趋同和更普遍的分歧。在趋同方面，最高法院承认跨国诉讼并明确援引欧洲对属人管辖权的方法，这有助于将一般管辖权从过去似乎已由美国法律解决的过高的“经商”管辖权转移。但持续的分歧讲述了更有趣的故事。法院拒绝背离其对临时管辖权的承诺，自 2011 年以来最近缩小了特定管辖权，默示拒绝待决当事人属人管辖权，其对基于同意的属人管辖权的强烈形式的坚持与其他国家对属人管辖权的做法形成鲜明对比。这种对比建立在与美国历史、政治结构和诉讼规范的深厚而顽固的联系之上，所有这些都使得更广泛的融合变得困难，如果不是难以置信的话。由于这些原因，美国属人管辖权原则更有可能继续在独立的轨道上发展，而不是追随全球趋势。一些并行领域可能仍然存在，但实质性的融合可能仍然难以实现。由于这些原因，美国属人管辖权原则更有可能继续在独立的轨道上发展，而不是追随全球趋势。一些并行领域可能仍然存在，但实质性的融合可能仍然难以实现。由于这些原因，美国的属人管辖权原则更有可能继续在独立的轨道上发展，而不是顺应全球趋势。一些并行领域可能仍然存在，但实质性的融合可能仍然难以实现。