Specific jurisdiction in the European Union (EU) is in a state of flux. While its theoretical foundation varies among legal systems, the explanatory model in EU law—established by the Brussels Ia Regulation—is the close geographical connection between a dispute’s subject matter and a court. It is believed that the court with such a connection is best positioned to judge the matter. Therefore, Article 7 of the Brussels Ia Regulation allocates jurisdiction over subject matters as broadly defined as contracts and torts to the court of an array of predetermined locations. However, in reality the courts so identified will not always have a close connection to the dispute. Nonetheless, the court of that place has jurisdiction. This article will evaluate the legitimacy of denying a more concrete role to the linkage between a forum and a dispute. It will also contrast the current state of play in the EU with the approach taken in the jurisdictional filters featuring in the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.

中文翻译：

---

特定管辖权是否已死，我们是否谋杀了它？在 HCCH 2019 判决公约的全球化背景下评估布鲁塞尔 Ia 法规

欧盟 (EU) 的特定管辖权处于不断变化的状态。虽然其理论基础因法律制度而异，但欧盟法律中的解释模型（由布鲁塞尔 Ia 条例建立）是争议标的物与法院之间的密切地理联系。人们认为，有这种联系的法院最适合对此事进行判决。因此，布鲁塞尔 Ia 条例第 7 条将广义上定义为合同和侵权的标的物的管辖权分配给一系列预定地点的法院。然而，实际上，如此确定的法院并不总是与争议密切相关。尽管如此，那个地方的法院还是有管辖权的。本文将评估拒绝在论坛与争议之间的联系中发挥更具体作用的合法性。