Abstract
In its purest form, the doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to deny jurisdiction of a matter where principles of justice and convenience favor dismissal. This paper discusses the background and history of the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens, how the doctrine found its way into federal law, and how it eventually came to be used as a bar to lawsuits by foreign plaintiffs in the United States. The paper then discusses some of the arguments advanced by opponents of forum non conveniens, and the suggestions they have made to correct the perceived inequities of the doctrine. Finally, the paper identifies some important issues that remain undecided under the modern doctrine.

Paper Outline:
Introduction
History and Background of the Foreign Non Conveniens Doctrine
History of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens
Private and Public Interest Factors Developed In Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert
Forum Non Conveniens Almost Goes Extinct
The Modern "International" Doctrine of Foreign Non Conveniens
Forum Non Conveniens Re-Emerges and Goes International
Change of Law Loses Importance
The Two-Part Forum Non Conveniens Test
Application of the Modern Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine
Problems with the "New" Application of the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine
Alternatives to the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine
Other Issues Identified by Federal Courts
Conclusion

From the Paper
"Probably the best and most realistic way to fix the perceived inequity of the forum non conveniens doctrine is for the United States Supreme Court to provide federal courts with a little more guidance on the rule, and to relax the harsh effects that it has been found to have. Although the Piper court claimed that part of the value of the doctrine was its flexibility, the current standards are a little too flexible, and allow courts to dismiss cases brought by foreign plaintiffs too easily. American courts should take responsibility for enforcing justice where justice is due, instead of continuously worrying about how many cases are on the docket."

Tags:Paxton, Blair, Piper, Aircraft, Co., Draft, Hague, Torture, Victim, Prevention, Act

Abstract
This paper begins with a definition of the legal term 'non forum conveniens'. It continues to explore the traditional application and the newer concept of this doctrine. The discussion then focuses on the practical implications of the doctrine by reviewing a legal case. In conclusion, the author expands on the effects of this type of discretionary power.

Table of Contents:
Introduction
Forum Non Conveniens
Osuwu V Jackson and Forum Non Conveniens
Discussion and Conclusion
References

From the Paper
"The article also asserts that there is a traditional and new form of the concept of forum non conveniens. The traditional view came about as a result of the St. Pierre Case decided in the UK. This case found that "a court could not refuse to consider a case within its jurisdiction unless the plaintiff's choice of forum was:...oppressive or vexatious to the defendant or would be an abuse of process in some other way. The belief concerning the traditional use of forum non conveniens was that such a rule would prevent a spiteful plaintiff from deliberately harassing a defendant through legal action in an inconvenient location. Because taking a company to court in its home country could not amount to harassment, local corporations had no escape from their home courts under the traditional concept of forum non conveniens."

Tags:legal, doctrine, location, court

Abstract
This paper explores the legal case of "Owusu vs. Jackson" in explicit detail. It discusses the general details and case history explaining the outcome to take trial in Britain as apposed to Jamaica even though some of the defendants were Jamaican. It examines the forum non conveniens doctrine and the Brussels Convention. It also expands on the importance of this particular case and its effects on international trade law.

From the Paper
"What was alleged was the fact that there had been an earlier accident of the same kind some time earlier on the very same beach, and the Jamaican companies had failed to issue a warning of any sort, and in addition, and the fact was that had they posted a warning of some kind, then perhaps the accident would have been averted. The fact that the warning was not issued was quoted in the action against the Jamaican companies. The ECJ had in fact initially rejected the argument that had been put forward by the defendants, and by the United Kingdom Government, that according to the Brussels Convention and its domicile rules, in Article 2, there would be no possibility of application, because of the fact that the claimant, that is, Owusu, and one of the defendants, that is, Jackson, were in fact domiciled in the United Kingdom, and the other defendants were domiciled in Jamaica. Therefore, according to Article 2 of the Brussels Convention, what was stated was that according to the provisions of the Convention, those persons domiciled in a contracting state must, whatever shall be their nationality, they may be sued in the courts of that state."

Tags:case, forum, non, conveniens, Jamaica, England