Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Jurisdiction of Japanese Courts in a Comparative Perspective

  • Articles
  • Published:
Netherlands International Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

This article examines the 2011 reform of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), which introduced new provisions on international adjudicatory jurisdiction. After considering the salient features of major jurisdiction rules in the CCP, the author analyzes the regulation of international parallel litigations. The relevant rules of the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) are taken into consideration from a comparative perspective. In conclusion, the author points out that the basic structure of Japanese jurisdiction rules is in line with that of the Brussels I Regulation (Recast), whereas some important jurisdictional grounds clearly deviate from the latter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Act for Partial Revision of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) and the Civil Provisional Remedies Act (CPRA) (Law No. 36 of 2 May 2011; entry into force on 1 April 2012). For an English translation, see M. Dogauchi, ‘Act for Partial Revision of Code of Civil Procedure and Civil Provisional Remedies Act’, 12 Japanese Yearbook of Private International Law (JYPIL) (2010) pp. 225–241 and 54 Japanese Yearbook of International Law (JYIL) (2011) pp. 723–732; Y. Okuda, ‘New Provisions on International Jurisdiction of Japanese Courts’, 13 Yearbook of Private International Law (YPIL) (2011) pp. 369–380; K. Takahashi, ‘Japan’s Newly Enacted Rules on International Jurisdiction: With a Refection on Some Issues of Interpretation’, 13 JYPIL (2011) pp. 147–160 (see also ebook ISBN: 9781466057562); for a German translation, see Y. Nishitani, ‘Neue Regelungen über die internationale Zuständigkeit in Zivil- und Handelssachen in Japan’, 33 IPRax (2013) pp. 298–301 and 33 Zeitschrift für Japanisches Recht/Journal of Japanese Law (ZJapanR/J Jap. L) (2012) pp. 205–214; for an explanation of the new act, see the relevant articles in 54 JYIL (2011) pp. 260–332 and 55 JYIL (2012) pp. 263–322, as well as in Japan Federation of Bar Associations, ed., New Legislation on International Jurisdiction of the Japanese Courts: Practitioner’s Perspective (Tokyo, Shôjihômu 2012) (hereinafter ‘New Legislation’) pp. 93–152; M. Dogauchi, ‘Forthcoming Rules on International Jurisdiction’, 12 JYPIL (2010) pp. 212–224; idem, ‘New Japanese Rules on International Jurisdiction: General Observation’ (hereinafter ‘General Observation’), 54 JYIL (2011) pp. 260–277; Y. Nishitani, ‘Die internationale Zuständigkeit Japans in Zivil- und Handelssachen’, 33 IPRax (2013) pp. 289–295; idem, ‘Wann sind die Gerichte in Japan zuständig? — Einführung zu den neuen internationalen Zuständigkeitsregelungen’, 33 ZJapanR/J Jap. L (2012) pp. 197–204; Okuda, loc. cit., pp. 367–380; Takahashi, loc. cit., pp. 146–170; D. Yokomizo, ‘The New Act on International Jurisdiction in Japan: Signifcance and Remaining Problems’, 34 ZJapanR/J Jap. L (2013) pp. 95–113; M. Yoshida, ‘Neue Regelungen zur internationalen Zuständigkeit der Gerichte in Japan’, 58 RIW (2012) pp. 118–123; cf. T. Kono, ‘The Reform of International Civil Procedure Law in Japan’, 30 ZJapanR/J Jap. L (2010) pp. 147–155.

  2. See Y. Nishitani, ‘Internationales Privat- und Zivilverfahrensrecht’, in H. Baum and M. Bälz, eds., Handbuch Japanisches Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht (Cologne, Carl Heymanns Verlag 2011) paras. 111–112.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Supreme Court 16 October 1981, Minshû 35–7, 1224 = Japanese Annual of International Law (JAIL) 26 (1983), 122 (Malaysia Airlines case); see also infra n. 60.

  4. H. Kaneko, Shinshû Minji-Soshôhô Taikei (New Civil Procedure Law System), 2nd edn. (Tokyo, Sakai Shoten 1965) p. 59. In contrast to German case law, the double functionality of domestic jurisdiction rules of CCP was not assumed as such. See S. Ikehara, ‘Kokusaiteki Saiban Kankatsuken’ (International Judicial Jurisdiction), in C. Suzuki and A. Mikazuki, eds., Shin Jitsumu Minji-Soshôhô Kôza (New Series on Practice of Civil Procedure Law) (Tokyo, Nihon Hyôronsha 1982) pp. 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Supreme Court 11 November 1997, Minshû 51–10, 4055 = JAIL 41 (1998), 117 (Family case); see also infra n. 129.

  6. Nishitani, supra n. 2, at paras. 113–115; A. Petersen, Das internationale Zivilprozeβrecht in Japan (Cologne, Carl Heymanns Verlag 2003) pp. 41–88.

  7. Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (not yet in force); for its background, see T.C. Hartley and M. Dogauchi, Explanatory Report on the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention (2007) pp. 16–17, available at: www.hcch.net/upload/expl37e.pdf; see also M. Pertegás, ‘The Revision of the Brussels I Regulation: A View from the Hague Conference’, in E. Lein, ed., The Brussels I Review Proposal Uncovered (London, British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) 2012) pp. 194–195.

  8. Minutes of the 1st meeting, infra n. 10; see Dogauchi, ‘General Observation’, supra n. 1, at p. 268; Yoshida, supra n. 1, at pp. 119–120.

  9. Shôjihômu Kenkyûkai, ed., Kokusai Saibankankatsu ni kansuru Chôsa Kenkyû Hôkokusho (Report of Research on International Judicial Jurisdiction) (hereinafter ‘Hôkokusho’), available at:www.moj.go.jp/content/000012193.pdf, published in New Business Law (NBL) No. 883 pp. 37–41, No. 884 pp. 64–74, No. 885 pp. 64–69, No. 886 pp. 81–90, No. 887 pp. 114–119, No. 888 pp. 72–81 (2008).

  10. Minutes of the meetings are available at: www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/shingi_kokusaihousei_index.html.

  11. Kokusai Saibankankatsu Hôsei ni kansuru Chûkan Shian (Interim Draft on the Legislation on International Jurisdiction) of 28 July 2009 (hereinafter ‘Interim Draft’); for its background, see ‘Kokusai Saibankankatsu Hôsei ni kansuru Chûkan Shian Hosoku Setsumei’ (Complementary Explanation to the Interim Draft on the Legislation on International Jurisdiction) (hereinafter ‘Hosoku Setsumei’), available at: www.e-gov.go.jp/.

  12. English translation at T. Kono, et al., ‘MOJ Proposal on International Jurisdiction (February 2010)’, 30 ZJapanR/J Jap. L (2010) pp. 156–161.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bill No. 34 of the Cabinet (submitted to the House of Councillors in the National Diet on 2 March 2010).

  14. Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001, L 12/1; for its recast, see infra n. 20.

  15. Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters done at Lugano on 16 September 1988, OJ 1988, L 319/9; replaced by the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 30 October 2007, OJ 2007, L 339/3.

  16. Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters adopted by the Special Commission on 30 October 1999, available at: www.hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgmpd11.pdf.

  17. Hôkokusho, supra n. 9, at p. 3; Dogauchi, ‘General Observation’, supra n. 1, at pp. 269–276.

  18. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at pp. 2–3.

  19. Cf. Supreme Court 28 April 1998, Minshû 52–3, 853 = JAIL 42 (1999), 144 (Sadhwani case); for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Japan, see Nishitani, supra n. 2, at paras. 174–192.

  20. Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ 2012, L 351/1.

  21. Hôkokusho, supra n. 9, at pp. 6–8.

  22. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at p. 4; T. Sato and Y. Kobayashi, eds., Heisei 23nen Minji Soshôhô tô Kaisei: Kokusai Saiban Kankatsu Hôsei no Seibi (2011 Reform of the CCP etc.: Legislation on International Jurisdiction) (Tokyo, Shôjihômu 2012) pp. 23–24.

  23. Hôkokusho, supra n. 9, at p. 11.

  24. Unlike Arts. 2–4 Brussels I (Arts. 4–6 Brussels I Recast), the concept of domicile refers only to natural persons under Art. 3–2(1)(3) CCP.

  25. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at p. 7.

  26. See Nishitani, supra n. 2, at paras. 122–125; S. Watanabe and M. Nagata, ‘Gimu Rikôchi no Kankatsuken’ (Jurisdiction of the Place of Performance), in A. Takakuwa and M. Dogauchi, eds., Kokusai Minji Soshôhô: Zaisanhô Kankei (International Civil Procedure Law: Proprietary Claims) (Tokyo, Seirin Shoin 2002) pp. 75–76; also Tokyo District Court 15 February 1984, Hanrei Jihô (HJ) 1135, 70; Tokyo District Court 1 June 1987, Kin-yû Shôji Hanrei 790, 32; Tokyo District Court 25 April 1995, HJ 1561, 84; Tokyo District Court 31 October 2006, Hanrei Times (HT) 1241, 338; contra Tokyo District Court 28 August 1989, HJ 1338, 121.

  27. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at pp. 8–9.

  28. T. Sawaki and M. Dogauchi, Kokusaishihô Nyûmon (Introduction to Private International Law), 7th edn. (Tokyo, Yûhikaku 2012) p. 277.

    Google Scholar 

  29. N. Tada, ‘International Civil Jurisdiction Based on the Place of the Tort’, 55 JYIL (2012) p. 287 at p. 295; Tokyo District Court 19 June 1989, HT 703, 246; Tokyo District Court 4 April 2006, HJ 1940, 130.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See, inter alia, S. Leible, ‘Art. 5 Brussels I’, in T. Rauscher, ed., Europäisches Zivilprozess-und Kollisionsrecht: Kommentar (Munich, Sellier 2011) paras. 59–59a.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sawaki and Dogauchi, supra n. 28, at p. 277.

  32. CJEU 17 September 2002 — Case C-334/00 Tacconi v. Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH [2002] ECR I-7383; for a thorough criticism, see, inter alia, P. Mankowski, ‘Art. 5 Brussels I’, in U. Magnus and P. Mankowski, eds., Brussels I Regulation, 2nd edn. (Munich, Sellier 2012) paras. 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ 2007, L 199/40; for further discussion, see, inter alia, C. Budzikiewicz, ‘Art. 12 Rome II’, in H.-P. Mansel, et al., eds., Nomos Kommentar: BGB, Vol. 6: Rom-Verordnungen zum Internationalen Privatrecht (Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlag, forthcoming 2013); A. Dickinson, Rome II Regulation (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2008) paras. 12.01-12.23; cf. the contractual characterization of culpa in contrahendo in Art. 9(1)(g) of the Draft Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts (as adopted by the Special Commission in November 2012, available at: www.hcch.net/).

  34. Also Art. 6 (a)-(c) of the 1999 Draft Hague Convention; Watanabe and Nagata, supra n. 26, at p. 77.

  35. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at pp. 9–11; A. Saito, ‘International Civil Jurisdiction Based on the Place of Performance of Obligation Relating to a Contract’, 54 JYIL (2011) p. 295 at pp. 304–308; also Osaka District Court 25 March 1991, HJ 1408, 100; contra Nagoya High Court 12 November 1979, HT 402, 102.

  36. Also Tokyo High Court 31 May 1993, Minshû 51–10, 4073; Tokyo District Court 25 April 1995, supra n. 26.

  37. Minutes of the 2nd meeting, supra n. 10; Sawaki and Dogauchi, supra n. 28, at pp. 278–279.

  38. CJEU 6 October 1976 — Case C-12/76 Tessili v. Dunlop [1976] ECR 1473.

  39. United Nations Convention of 11 April 1980 on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (accession of Japan: 1 July 2008).

  40. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at pp. 37–38; contra Sawaki and Dogauchi, supra n. 28, at p. 279. According to the majority of authors, a choice of non-state law including conventions such as CISG is not permissible in court proceedings. See Y. Nishitani, ‘Ist das Kollisionsrecht für den internationalen Rechts- und Wirtschaftsverkehr ein ausreichendes Instrumentarium? — Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der “lex mercatoria”’, in K. Riesenhuber and K. Takayama, eds., Rechtsangleichung: Grundlagen, Methoden und Inhalte — Deutsch-Japanische Perspektiven (Berlin, de Gruyter Verlag 2006) pp. 311–327.

  41. K. Yamamoto, ‘International Jurisdiction Based on the Location of Property’, 54 JYIL (2011) p. 311 at pp. 312–313.

    Google Scholar 

  42. § 99(1) Austrian Jurisdiktionsnorm (Austrian Court Jurisdiction Act, hereinafter ‘JN’); § 23 German Zivilprozessordnung (German Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter ‘ZPO’); see Annex I of the Brussels I Regulation.

  43. Art. 25 of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast) of 14 December 2010 (COM(2010) 748/3) (hereinafter ‘Commission Proposal’) had provided for the situs jurisdiction as a subsidiary jurisdiction in relation to third states. This rule was not adopted, however; see infra n. 164.

  44. Hôkokusho, supra n. 9, at p. 20; Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 45.

  45. Yamamoto, supra n. 41, at pp. 313, 319–320.

  46. Oberster Gerichtshof 6 June 1991, IPRax 1992, 164 (roughly 20% of the value of the claim).

  47. Minutes of the 13th meeting, supra n. 10; Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at pp. 45–46; contra Sawaki and Dogauchi, supra n. 28, at p. 280.

  48. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at p. 14.

  49. Oberster Gerichtshof 29 October 1992, JBl. 1993, 666; Bundesgerichtshof 2 July 1991, BGHZ 115, 90.

  50. Interim Draft II-1, 1st alternative, supra n. 11.

  51. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at p. 13; advocated also by H. Takahashi, ‘Kokusai Saiban Kankatsu: Zaisankankei Jiken wo Chûshin ni shite’ (International Jurisdiction: Especially on Proprietary Claims), in T. Sawaki and Y. Aoyama, eds., Kokusai Minji Soshôhô no Riron (Theories of International Civil Procedure Law) (Tokyo, Yûhikaku 1987) p. 61.

  52. Yamamoto, supra n. 41, at p. 318.

  53. Bundesgesetz über das Internationale Privatrecht (Swiss Private International Law Act), Interim Draft II-1, 2nd alternative, supra n. 11.

  54. Yamamoto, supra n. 41, at p. 318.

  55. In contrast to domestic jurisdiction (Art. 5 No. 4, 2nd alternative CCP), the international situs jurisdiction based on securities in person or property has rightly been excluded. The reasoning was that (i) securities in property can be executed without an enforcement title pursuant to Arts. 180–195 CCE, which makes jurisdiction on the merit superfuous; and (ii) the obligor should not be subject to Japan’s jurisdiction only because the guarantor is domiciled in Japan. For maritime securities, however, the situs of the ship constitutes the jurisdiction of the Japanese courts in accordance with established maritime business practice (Art. 3–3 No. 6 CCP). Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at p. 14; Yamamoto, supra n. 41, at pp. 313–314.

  56. Also Art. 12(1) of the 1999 Draft Hague Convention and Art. 2(2)(l) Hague Convention; see Hartley and Dogauchi, supra n. 7, at pp. 33–34.

  57. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at pp. 23–24; minutes of the 7th meeting, supra n. 10.

  58. Art. 3–5 CCP encompasses disputes over entries in public registers in general, which is broader than Art. 22(3) Brussels I (Art. 24(3) Brussels I Recast) whose scope is limited to the ‘validity’ of such entries.

  59. M. Dogauchi, ‘Nihon no Atarashii Kokusai Saibankankatsu Rippô ni tsuite’ (Forthcoming Rules on International Jurisdiction), 12 JYPIL (2010) p. 186 at p. 194; Sawaki and Dogauchi, supra n. 28, at p. 276; M. Nagata, ‘Kokusai Saibankankatsu Kitei no Rippô to Kokusai Torihiki he no Eikyô’ (New Rules for International Jurisdiction in Japan and Their Effects on International Transactions), 13 Kokusai Shôtorihiki Gakkai Nenpô (Yearbook of the Academy for International Business Transactions) (2011) p. 205 at pp. 206–208; cf. minutes of the 13th meeting, supra n. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  60. In the Malaysia Airlines case (supra n. 3), the victim Mr. Goto, a Japanese national domiciled in Japan, had purchased his fight ticket in Malaysia and boarded a domestic fight operated by Malaysia Airlines in Penang heading for Kuala Lumpur. Following a violent hijacking, Mr. Goto was killed along with all the other passengers and crew members. His wife and two children, all Japanese nationals domiciled in Japan, fled a damages claim against Malaysia Airlines before the Nagoya District Court. The Supreme Court granted ‘general’ jurisdiction to the Japanese courts following ex-Art. 4(3) CCP, which conferred local jurisdiction on the basis of a foreign company’s offce within Japan (the ‘reverse presumption theory’). See Nishitani, supra n. 2, at para. 113; A. Lowenfeld, ‘International Litigation and the Quest for Reasonableness’, 245 Hague Recueil (1994-I) pp. 83–87.

  61. Otherwise, Japan would have the branch offce jurisdiction (Art. 3–3 No. 4 CCP) under the same facts as in the Malaysia Airlines case (supra n. 3 and n. 60). J. Yokoyama, Kokusaishihô (Private International Law) (Tokyo, Sanseidô 2012) p. 334; contra Y. Muto, ‘Jurisdiction over Actions Based on Place of Domicile, Residence and Business Offce’, in New Legislation, supra n. 1, at pp. 98–99.

    Google Scholar 

  62. CJEU 9 December 1987 — Case C-218/86 SAR Schotte v. Parfums Rothschild [1987] ECR 4905; see, inter alia, Mankowski, supra n. 32, at paras. 281–285.

  63. Company Act (Law No. 86 of 26 July 2005); see Y. Nomura, ‘Activity-Based Jurisdiction of Japanese Courts — A Bold but Unnecessary Departure —’, 55 JYIL (2012) p. 263 at pp. 269–272.

  64. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310 [1945]; Perkins v. Benguet Consol Mining Co., 342 US 437 [1952]; World-Wide Volkswagen Co. v. Woodson, 444 US 286 [1980]; Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 US 408 [1984]; Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 [2011]; see also infra n. 76.

  65. The admissibility of doing business jurisdiction was one of the most disputed points in the original Hague Judgments Project. Art. 18(2)(e) of the 1999 Draft Hague Convention placed it on the blacklist. See P. Nijgh and F. Pocar, Report on the Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters adopted by the Special Commission (2000), available at: www.hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgmpd11.pdf, pp. 80–81.

  66. Dogauchi, ‘General Observation’, supra n. 1, at pp. 273–274; Nagata, supra n. 59, at pp. 208–209; Nomura, supra n. 63, at pp. 277–286.

  67. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at p. 16.

  68. Tada, supra n. 29, at pp. 290–291.

  69. See Nishitani, supra n. 2, at para. 132; Tada, supra n. 29, at pp. 296–297; Tokyo District Court 27 November 1998, HT 1037, 235.

  70. Ikehara, supra n. 4, at p. 32; M. Dogauchi, ‘Zenchû: Kokusaiteki Saiban Kankatsuken’ (Preliminary Notes: International Jurisdiction), in C. Suzuki and Y. Aoyama, eds., Chûshaku Minjisoshôhô (Commentaries on Civil Procedure Law), Vol. 1 (Tokyo, Yûhikaku 1991) pp. 122–124.

  71. See Nishitani, supra n. 2, at paras. 129–131; H. Sano, ‘Fuhôkôichi no Kankatsuken’ (Jurisdiction of the Place of the Tort), in A. Takakuwa and M. Dogauchi, eds., Kokusai Minji Soshôhô: Zaisanhô Kankei (International Civil Procedure Law: Proprietary Claims) (Tokyo, Seirin Shoin 2002) p. 93; contra Tada, supra n. 29, at pp. 294–295.

  72. See, inter alia, CJEU 30 November 1976 — Case C-21/76 Bier v. Mines de potasse d’Alsace [1976] ECR 1735; 1 October 2002 — Case C-167/00 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Henkel [2002] ECR I-8111; 5 February 2004 — Case C-18/02 DFDS Torline v. SEKO [2004] ECR I-1417; 10 June 2004 — Case C-168/02 Kronhofer v. Maier et al. [2004] ECR I-6009; 16 July 2009 — Case C-189/08 Zuid-Chemie v. Philippo’s [2009] ECR I-6917.

  73. See Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 69; in this sense also Ikehara, supra n. 4, at p. 31; Dogauchi, supra n. 70, at p. 131; Tokyo District Court 15 February 1984, supra n. 26; Tokyo District Court 31 October 2006, supra n. 26.

  74. Sawaki and Dogauchi, supra n. 28, at p. 285; Tada, supra n. 29, at pp. 299–302; also S. Watanabe, ‘Kokusai Saiban Kankatsu’ (International Jurisdiction), in Y. Taniguchi and H. Inoue, eds., Shin Hanrei Kommentar: Minji Soshôhô (New Commentaries on Case Law: Civil Procedure Law), Vol. 1 (Tokyo, Sanseidô 1993) p. 75; Shizuoka District Court (Numazu Branch) 30 April 1993, HT 824, 241.

  75. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at pp. 21–22.

  76. See the discussion in the US compared with the criterion of ‘purposeful availment’ at: Volkswagen, supra n. 64; Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 US 102 [1987]; J. McIntyre v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 [2011]; Goodyear, supra n. 64.

  77. See Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at pp. 70–71; minutes of the 2nd, 7th and 11th meeting, supra n. 10.

  78. For an interpretation of Art. 17, 2nd sentence AGRAL, see ‘Kokusaishihô no Gendaika ni kansuru Yôkô no Gaiyô’ (Summary of the Proposal for the Modernization of Private International Law), in Bessatsu NBL Henshûbu, ed., Hô no Tekiyô ni kansuru Tsûsokuhô Kankeishiryô to Kaisetsu (Materials and Explanations for the Act on the General Rules on the Application of Laws) (Tokyo, Shôjihômu 2006) p. 57.

  79. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 72; also Supreme Court 8 June 2001, Minshû 55–4, 727 (Ultraman case). In contrast to German procedural rules, facts relating both to the jurisdictional ground and the merit (doppelrelevante Tatsachen) shall also be proven by the parties when deciding on jurisdiction. Nishitani, supra n. 2, at paras. 133–135; cf. H. Schack, Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 5th edn. (Munich, C.H. Beck 2010) pp. 156–157.

  80. Minutes of the 2nd meeting, supra n. 10.

  81. CJEU 7 March 1995 — Case C-68/93 Shevill v. Presse Alliance SA [1995] ECR I-415.

  82. As an exception for defamation via the Internet, the plaintiff can claim compensation for the whole damage both at the place of his/her centre of interest as well as at the defendant’s establishment. See CJEU 25 October 2011 — Case C-509/09 eDate Advertising GmbH v. X & Olivier Martinez and Case C-161/10 Robert Martinez v. MGN Limited (not yet published in ECR); see OJ 2011, C 370/ 9 = NJW 2012, 137.

  83. Y. Nakanishi, ‘Shuppanbutsu ni yoru Meiyo Kison Jiken no Kokusai Saibankankatsu ni kansuru Ôshû Shihô Saibansho 1995-3-7 Hanketsu ni tsuite’ (On the decision of 7 March 1995 rendered by the ECJ with regard to international jurisdiction concerning defamation caused by publication), 142/5 & 6 Hôgaku Ronsô (Kyoto Law Review) (1998) pp. 181–219; Tada, supra n. 29, at p. 303.

  84. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at pp. 107–109.

  85. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at pp. 17–20.

  86. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 105.

  87. Contra D. Yokomizo, ‘Kokusai Senzoku Kankatsu’ (International Exclusive Jurisdiction), 245 Nagoya Daigaku Hôsei Ronshû (Nagoya University Journal of Law and Politics) (2012) pp. 123–145.

    Google Scholar 

  88. For the negation of the refexive effect under the Brussels I Regulation, see CJEU 7 February 2006 — Opinion 01/03, Lugano Convention [2006] ECR I-1145, para. 153; A. Dickinson, ‘The Revision of the Brussels I Regulation: Surveying the Proposed Brussels I bis Regulation — Solid Foundation but Renovation Needed’, 12 YPIL (2010) p. 247 at p. 302; T.C. Hartley, ‘The Brussels Regulation and Non-Community States’, in J. Basedow, et al., eds., Japanese and European Private International Law in Comparative Perspective (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck Verlag 2008) pp. 23–24; K. Takahashi, ‘Review of the Brussels I Regulation: A Comment from the Perspectives of Non-Member States (Third States)’, 8 Journal of Private International Law (2012) p. 1 at pp. 8–11; I. Pretelli, ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast)’, published by the European Parliament (www.europarl.europa.eu/) pp. 22–24; contra J. Weber, ‘Universal Jurisdiction and Third States in the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation’, 75 RabelsZ (2011) p. 619 at pp. 630–633.

  89. Unlike Arts. 1(1) and 3(b) Hague Convention or Art. 23(1) Brussels I (Art. 27(1) Brussels I Recast), Art. 3–7 CCP does not stipulate that the choice of court agreement must be primarily understood as exclusive. This may well result in questions of interpretation in practice. S. Nakano, ‘Agreement on Jurisdiction’, 54 JYIL (2011) p. 278 at pp. 284–285.

    Google Scholar 

  90. For further discussion, Nakano, supra n. 89, at pp. 283–294.

  91. Supreme Court 28 November 1975, Minshu 29–10, 1554 (Chisadane case); see infra n. 92.

  92. In the Chisadane case (supra n. 91), a Dutch shipping company issued a bill of lading with an exclusive jurisdiction clause designating the court in Amsterdam to a Brazilian company who had sold sugar to a Japanese company. As the sugar was damaged during transport, the latter’s insurer paid the insurance and fled a damages claim by subrogation against the Dutch company before the Kobe District Court. The Supreme Court honoured the jurisdiction clause and dismissed the claim for the following reasons: (i) The designated court and the existence of an agreement were made clear in the bill of lading so that the formal requirement was fulflled. (ii) The case was not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Japan and the chosen court had jurisdiction under Dutch law. (iii) In light of international maritime business, the Dutch company’s choice for the court of Amsterdam where its principal offce was located was reasonable and did not violate public policy. For further detail, see Nakano, supra n. 89, at pp. 280–283; Nishitani, supra n. 2, at para. 142.

  93. Art. 23(1)(c) Brussels I (Art. 25(1)(c) Brussels I Recast); see, inter alia, A. Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2008) paras. 7.54-7.55; U. Magnus, ‘Art. 23’, in Magnus and Mankowski, eds., supra n. 32, para. 126. Cf. the limited scope of application of the Hague Convention (Art. 2(2)(f)(g)).

  94. Ikehara, supra n. 4, at p. 36; Y. Kaise, Kokusaika Shakai no Minjisoshô: Asu no Hô (droit de demain) wo mezashite (Civil Litigation in Cross-Border Society: Toward Law of Tomorrow) (Tokyo, Shinzansha 1993) p. 291.

  95. T. Kanzaki, ‘Gôi ni yoru Kankatsuken’ (Jurisdiction by Agreement), in A. Takakuwa and M. Dogauchi, eds., Kokusai Minji Soshôhô: Zaisanhô Kankei (International Civil Procedure Law: Proprietary Claims) (Tokyo, Seirin Shoin 2002) pp. 138–140; Nakano, supra n. 89, at pp. 287–288; K. Yamamoto, ‘Kokusai Minji Soshôhô’ (International Civil Procedure Law), in H. Saitô, et al., eds., Chûkai Minji Soshôhô (Commentaries on Civil Procedure Law), Vol. 5, 2nd edn. (Tokyo, Daiichi Hôki 1991) pp. 403–404.

    Google Scholar 

  96. See Recital 20 Brussels I Recast; Hartley and Dogauchi, supra n. 7, at p. 43; also C. Heinze, ‘Choice of Court Agreements, Coordination of Proceedings and Provisional Measures in the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation’, 75 RabelsZ (2011) p. 581 at pp. 584–587; U. Magnus, ‘Choice of Court Agreements in the Review Proposal for the Brussels I Regulation’, in Lein, ed., supra n. 7, at pp. 86–87.

  97. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at pp. 140–141; minutes of the 11th meeting, supra n. 10; cf. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at p. 30.

  98. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at p. 29; also Chisadane case, supra nn. 91 and 92.

  99. Cf. Okayama District Court 25 January 2000, Kôtsûjiko Minji Saibanreishû (Civil Law Decisions in Traffc Accidents) 33–1, 157; contra Kaise, supra n. 94, at pp. 289–291.

  100. Magnus, supra n. 93, at para. 47.

  101. Hartley and Dogauchi, supra n. 7, at paras. 229–230.

  102. Intellectual Property Act (Law No. 122 of 4 December 2002).

  103. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at pp. 36–37. It does not comprise disputes over the ownership of IP rights, which do not require any special technique or expertise on the part of the courts of the country of registration. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 111.

  104. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 109.

  105. Hôkokusho, supra n. 9, at pp. 66–67; Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at pp. 69, 111, 113–114.

  106. See Y. Nishitani, ‘Supreme Court 26 September 2002, Fujimoto v. Neuron Co. Ltd. (“Card Reader” case)’, in M. Bälz, et al., eds., Business Law in Japan (Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International 2012) pp. 679–689.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Hôkokusho, supra n. 9, at pp. 67–68; Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at pp. 37–38; minutes of the 4th meeting, supra n. 10.

  108. Art. 104-3 Patent Act (Law No. 121 of 13 April 1959).

  109. 35 USC 282.

  110. §§ 65(1), 81, and 139 Patentgesetz (German Patent Act, PatG); § 148 ZPO.

  111. CJEU 13 July 2006 — Case C-4/03 GAT v. LuK [2006] ECR I-6509; Case C-539/03 Roche Nederland v. Primus et al. [2006] ECR I-6535.

  112. See Hôkokusho, supra n. 9, at p. 68; minutes of the 4th meeting, supra n. 10.

  113. Nishitani, supra n. 106, at p. 685; contra CJEU in the Roche case, supra n. 111.

  114. It is disputed whether Art. 3–6 CCP on the joinder of claims should be applicable as well. See T. Kanzaki, ‘Jurisdiction over Consumer Contracts and Individual Labor-Related Civil Disputes’, 55 JYIL (2012) p. 306 at pp. 312–313, 315–316.

    Google Scholar 

  115. When the employee performs his/her labour at several ascertainable places, all of them constitute jurisdiction. A. Fukuda, ‘Kokusai Saibankankatsu ni kansuru Minji Soshôhô tô no Kaisei no Gaiyô’ (Outlines of the CCP Reform with Respect to International Jurisdiction), 1931 Kin-yû Hômu Jijô (Financial Law Journal) (2011) p. 79; Kanzaki, supra n. 114, at pp. 311–312; minutes of the 8th meeting, supra n. 10.

  116. Kanzaki, supra n. 114, at pp. 310–312.

  117. Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ 2008, L 177/6.

  118. For a comparison of the notion of ‘passive’ consumers under these provisions, see Y. Nishitani, ‘Die Reform des internationalen Privatrechts in Japan’, 27 IPRax (2007) p. 552 at p. 555.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at pp. 43–44; Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 88; contra Hôkokusho, supra n. 9, at pp. 73–74.

  120. Dogauchi, supra n. 59, at pp. 197–198; Kanzaki, supra n. 114, at pp. 317–319; Okuda, supra n. 1, at p. 374.

  121. An exclusive forum selection clause is understood ex lege as non-exclusive (Art. 3–7(5) No. 1 and (6) No. 1 CCP). The choice of court agreement in employment contracts under (ii) can only be made at the time of terminating the contract, e. g., together with a non-competition clause. Sawaki and Dogauchi, supra n. 28, at pp. 294–295; Kanzaki, supra n. 114, at pp. 313–314.

  122. See Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at pp. 147–148; Kanzaki, supra n. 114, at pp. 314–315. On the other hand, Japan lacks a provision that corresponds to Art. 17(3) Brussels I (Art. 19(3) Brussels I Recast), which upholds an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the common domicile or habitual residence of the consumer and the business operator at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

  123. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at pp. 47–48; see also the Ultraman case, supra n. 79.

  124. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at pp. 125–126.

  125. It is not required, though, that the parties be joined ex lege as under Art. 40 CCP. Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at p. 50; for the previous state of the discussion, see Nishitani, supra n. 2, at paras. 143–144.

  126. Pursuant to Art. 6 Brussels I (Art. 8 Brussels I Recast), the subjective joinder of claims is limited to defendants at the domicile of one of them (No. 1) and third-party proceedings (No. 2). But for a counterclaim (No. 3), the objective joinder of claims is admissible only in relation to a contractual claim related to rights in rem over immovable property at its situs (No. 4).

  127. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at pp. 121–123, 127–128.

  128. Y. Hayakawa, et al., in New Legislation, supra n. 1, at p. 28; Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at pp. 127–128.

  129. In the Family case (supra n. 5), the plaintiff X, a Japanese company, signed a contract with the defendant Y, a Japanese national domiciled in Germany. X commissioned Y to purchase automobiles in Europe and be engaged in market research. X brought an action before the Chiba District Court for the restitution of funds entrusted to Y. As a general framework, the Supreme Court primarily relied on domestic jurisdiction rules (the ‘reverse presumption theory’), while introducing a corrective rule to refuse Japan’s jurisdiction under ‘special circumstances’ where exercising jurisdiction would run counter to the ideas of fairness between the parties and an equitable and prompt administration of justice. In its application, however, the Supreme Court did not ascertain any specifc jurisdictional grounds in Japan. Rather, it only referred to the following special circumstances to refuse Japan’s jurisdiction: (i) it would be beyond Y’s expectation that the claim for restitution be made before a Japanese court, while the parties did not agree on the place of performance in Japan or the choice of Japanese law; (ii) Y’s home and principal place of business, as well as the evidence for the defence, were located in Germany; and (iii) X imported automobiles from Germany, so it would not be excessively burdensome for X to bring a suit there.

  130. On the other hand, jurisdiction by necessity (forum necessitatis) can be granted de lege lata to guarantee the plaintiffs right to be heard. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 181.

  131. Tokyo District Court 20 June 1986, HJ 1196, 87.

  132. Sawaki and Dogauchi, supra n. 28, at p. 312.

  133. In view of the corrective rule for domestic jurisdiction that also governs an exclusive choice of court agreement (Arts. 11 and 17 CCP), it was extensively discussed whether and how far Art. 3–9 CCP should control it as well. For the sake of the parties’ intent and foreseeability, an exclusive choice of court agreement was eventually excluded from the scope of Art. 3–9 CCP. Minutes of the 13th to 15th meeting, supra n. 10; Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 162.

  134. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 164.

  135. It is notable that Member States of the Hague Conference on Private International Law had agreed upon adopting the forum non conveniens doctrine in the original Judgments Project (Art. 22 of the 1999 Draft Hague Convention).

  136. CJEU 1 March 2005 — Case C-281/02 Owusu v. Jackson [2005] ECR I-1383.

  137. For further discussion, see Dogauchi, ‘General Observation’, supra n. 1, at pp. 275–276; Takahashi, supra n. 1, at pp. 160–167; contra Y. Aoyama, et al., ‘Kokusai Saiban Kankatsu: Minjisoshôhô Kaisei wo ukete’ (International Jurisdiction: Following the Reform of CCP), 30 Nomos (Kansai University) (2012) pp. 173–176.

  138. Hayakawa, et al., supra n. 128, at pp. 11–12.

  139. Interim Draft VIII-1 (A)(B), supra n. 11; Hosoku Setsumei, supra n. 11, at pp. 56–59.

  140. M. Dogauchi, ‘Kokusai Soshô Kyôgô’ (International Parallel Litigation), in A. Takakuwa and M. Dogauchi, eds., Kokusai Minji Soshôhô: Zaisanhô Kankei (International Civil Procedure Law: Proprietary Claims) (Tokyo, Seirin Shoin 2002) pp. 146–148; T. Sawaki, ‘Kokusaiteki Soshô Kyôgô’ (International Parallel Litigation), in C. Suzuki and A. Mikazuki, eds., Shin Jitsumu Minjisoshôhô Kôza (New Series on the Practice of Civil Procedure Law), Vol. 7 (Tokyo, Nihon Hyôronsha 1982) p. 116; also Tokyo District Court 30 May 1989, HJ 1348, 91 (Miyakoshi Kikô case); cf. Tokyo District Court 28 January 1999, HT 1046, 273.

    Google Scholar 

  141. See Y. Hayakawa, ‘Lis Pendens’, 54 JYIL (2011) pp. 324–332; Nishitani, supra n. 2, at paras. 171–173.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at pp. 176–177.

  143. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 177; minutes of the 13th meeting, supra n. 10; cf. Dogauchi, ‘General Observation’, supra n. 1, at p. 276.

  144. Tokyo District Court 15 February 1984, supra n. 26; Tokyo District Court 28 August 1989, supra n. 26; Tokyo District Court 29 January 1991, HJ 1390, 98 (Masaki Bussan case); Tokyo District Court 27 November 1998, HT 1037, 235; Tokyo District Court 20 March 2007, HJ 1974, 156; also K. Ishiguro, ‘Gaikoku ni okeru Soshôkeizoku no Kokunaiteki Kôka: Kokusaiteki Soshô Kyôgô wo Chûshin to shite’ (Effects of Foreign Proceedings in Japan: Especially on International Parallel Litigations), in T. Sawaki and Y. Aoyama, eds., Kokusai Minji Soshôhô no Riron (Theories of International Civil Procedure Law) (Tokyo, Yûhikaku 1987) pp. 323–364.

  145. Tokyo District Court 29 January 1991, supra n. 144.

  146. See the Family case, supra nn. 5 and 129.

  147. See, inter alia, G. Berman, ‘Parallel Litigation: Is Convergence Possible?’, 13 YPIL (2011) p. 21 at pp. 27–28.

    Google Scholar 

  148. See Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 159.

  149. For possible anti-suit injunctions in support of cross-border insolvency proceedings in Japan, see S. Watanabe, ‘Gaikoku Soshô Sashitome Meirei: Nihon no Saibansho ha Meirei Dekiruka’ (Injunction of Foreign Actions: Can it be ordered by Japanese Courts?), in Y. Matsui, et al., eds., Global-ka suru Sekai to Hô no Kadai: Heiwa, Jinken, Keizai wo tegakari ni (Globalised World and the Challenge for Law: In respect of Peace, Human Rights and the Economy) (Tokyo, Tôshindô 2006) pp. 244–253.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Sato and Kobayashi, eds., supra n. 22, at p. 2.

  151. See supra nn. 3 and 59–61.

  152. H. Takahashi, et al., ‘Kokusai Saibankankatsu ni kansuru Rippô no Igi’ (The Impact of the Legislation on International Judicial Jurisdiction), 1386 Jurist (2009) p. 4 at p. 15; minutes of the 13th meeting, supra n. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  153. See supra n. 133.

  154. Act on the Recognition of and Assistance for Foreign Insolvency Proceedings (Law No. 129 of 29 November 2000).

  155. Arbitration Act (Law No. 138 of 1 August 2003).

  156. For an explanation of AGRAL, see, inter alia, J. Basedow, et al., eds., Japanese and European Private International Law in Comparative Perspective (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2008); Nishitani, supra n. 118, at pp. 552–557.

  157. Act on Japan’s Civil Jurisdiction over Foreign States (State Immunity Act) (Law No. 24 of 24 April 2009).

  158. Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (entry into force: 1 December 1983).

  159. Bill No. 29 of the Cabinet (submitted to the House of Representatives in the National Diet on 15 March 2013); see www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/joho1/kousei/gian/183/gian.htm.

  160. For the preparatory research by the Ministry of Justice, see www.moj.go.jp/MINJI/minji07_00117.html.

  161. D. Yokomizo, ‘Kokusai Saibankankatsu Hôsei no Seibi: Minji Soshôhô oyobi Minji Hozenhô no ichubu wo kaisei suru Hôritsu’ (Regulating International Judicial Jurisdiction: Act for a Partial Revision of CCP and CPRA), 1430 Jurist (2011) p. 37 at p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Supra n. 20.

  163. Supra n. 43.

  164. It was suggested that Art. 4 Brussels I be abolished and subsidiary rules on the basis of the situs of property and forum necessitatis be added where no Member State has jurisdiction (Arts. 25 and 26 Commission Proposal); see supra n. 43; also A. Borrás, ‘The Application of the Brussels I Regulation to Defendants Domiciled in Third States: From the EGPIL to the Commission Proposal’, in Lein, ed., supra n. 7, pp. 57–74; P. Kisselbach, ‘The Brussels I Review Proposal — An Overview’, ibid., pp. 9–10, 21–23; Dickinson, supra n. 88, at pp. 270–283; idem, ‘The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast) (“Brussels I bis” Regulation)’, published by the European Parliament (www.europarl.europa.eu/) pp. 11–16; H.-P. Mansel, et al., ‘Europäisches Kollisionsrecht 2012: Voranschreiten des Kodifkationsprozesses — Flickenteppich des Einheitsrechts’, 33 IPRax (2013) p. 1 at pp. 8–9; Weber, supra n. 88, at pp. 623–626, 637–642.

  165. Arts. 3–8 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, OJ 2009, L 7/1; Arts. 4–13 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certifcate of Succession, OJ 2012, L 201/107.

  166. For thorough criticisms, see Dickinson, supra n. 164, at pp. 13–14.

  167. See, e. g., Hartley, supra n. 88, at pp. 20–23.

  168. Mansel, et al., supra n. 164, at p. 9.

  169. The European Parliament took a reserved position toward the refexive-effect rule in its resolution of 7 September 2010 on the implementation and review of the Brussels I Regulation (2009/2140(INI)) para. 15; see supra n. 88.

  170. P. Rogerson, ‘Lis Pendens and Third States: The Commission’s Proposed Changes to the Brussels I Regulation’, in Lein, ed., supra n. 7, p. 119; cf. Magnus, supra n. 96, at pp. 100–101.

  171. CJEU 9 December 2003 — Case C-116/02 Erich Gasser GmbH v. MISAT Srl [2003] ECR I-14693.

  172. Cf. Heinze, supra n. 96, at pp. 587–596; Magnus, supra n. 96, at pp. 88, 95–96.

  173. The EU signed the Hague Convention on 1 April 2009.

  174. Cf. Dickinson, supra n. 88, at p. 302; idem, supra n. 164, at p. 16. The Brussels I Regulation (Recast) prevails over the Hague Convention where none of the parties is resident in a Contracting State that is not an EU Member State. Hartley and Dogauchi, supra n. 7, at pp. 296–301; Pertegás, supra n. 7, at pp. 199–200.

  175. In contrast to Art. 31(2)(3) Brussels I Recast, the Hague Convention allows the court not chosen by the parties to decide itself on the validity of the choice of court agreement. See Heinze, supra n. 96, at pp. 591–596; B. Hess, ‘Die Reform der EuGVVO und die Zukunft des Europäischen Zivilprozessrechts’, 31 IPRax (2011) p. 125 at p. 129; cf. A. Briggs, ‘What Should Be Done about Jurisdiction Agreements?’, 12 YPIL (2010) p. 311 at pp. 319–329.

  176. Magnus, supra n. 96, at pp. 100–101.

  177. Report of the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference of 17 to 20 April 2012, p. 17, available at: www.hcch.net/upload/wop/genaff2012report.pdf.

  178. See ‘Conclusions and Recommendations of the Expert Group on Possible Future Work on Cross-border Litigation in Civil and Commercial Matters’ (Work. Doc. No. 2 of April 2012) and Ongoing Work on International Litigation and Possible Continuation of the Judgments Project’ (Prel. Doc. No. 5 of March 2012), available at: www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=text.display&tid=150.

  179. See ‘Report of the Working Group Meeting’ (Prel. Doc. No. 3 of March 2013, Annex 1) and ‘Report of the Experts’ Group Meeting’ (Prel. Doc. No. 3 of March 2013, Annex 2); also Report of the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference of 9 to 11 April 2013, available at: www.hcch.net/upload/wop/genaff2013report_en.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Yuko Nishitani (Professor)

Authors
  1. Yuko Nishitani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nishitani, Y. International Jurisdiction of Japanese Courts in a Comparative Perspective. Neth Int Law Rev 60, 251–277 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X12001180

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X12001180

Keywords

Search

Navigation