In the summer of 1994, the 14th Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law met at Athens. The subject-matter of the meeting was “Rules for Declining to Exercise Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters: Forum Non Conveniens, Lis Pendens and Other Rules”. One end product of this exercise takes the form of an instructive collection of reports concerning the position in various national laws from national scholars, together with a summarizing general report from Professor Fawcett. This has now found its way into the series of Oxford Monographs in Private International Law. The countries covered are Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. By and large, each national entry is of great interest; many contain thoughtful and balanced legal analysis. Some, self-deprecatingly, observe that the unlikelihood of foreigners wishing to trek as far as their distant courtrooms has made the need to control forum shopping a minor issue, though in doing so they reveal what they regard as the scope of the forum shopping problem. Yet others adopt a somewhat different approach—and of these, which do not lack interest, more later.

If there is a general grumble which can sometimes be made (and is sometimes made by this reviewer) about collections of reports from our foreign correspondents, it is that they are often too general and too shallow to be of any real use except for distracted browsing. But this collection is clearly in a different class, mainly because the subject-matter lies within a pretty small compass, allowing one to repose greater confidence in the comprehensive quality of the coverage offered. (Even so, the lengths do rather differ. The six pages from Argentina and from Finland, and, for different reasons, the 27 pages from the United States do seem comparatively short treatments of the available material). It is also true that there is more passion in the writing than one usually expects to encounter. So, along with the opportunity to become better informed, one sees from such a collection, how stridently alien to certain influential civilian jurists, is the very idea that a judge (a judge! Imaginez!) should have a discretion to decline jurisdiction in favour of another court, whether ex officio or upon the application of a defendant, or otherwise howsoever.

Take the analysis of the French position, shown by Mme Gaudemet-Tallon. She conveys the clear impression that a French lawyer would regard any or general introduction of discretion into