英语论文网

>set out in codes of civil procedure, but we know much less well that other rules of law modify
these in their operation. Every legal system, we suppose, must have rules to prevent their law
being asserted abusively, and this must surely extend to rules of civil jurisdiction. We therefore
suppose that if someone invokes the jurisdiction of a French court by improper means – for
example, in flagrant breach of an agreement not to institute proceedings during a period of
settlement negotiations – there must be a power to deal with the wrong otherwise done. No
civilised system of law can be without power to prevent abusive recourse to the courts; and no
court can be without power, inherent or statutory, to deal with it.
But also, there is a tendency to see rules of civil jurisdiction as just rules, as prescriptions
which produce a particular outcome, lacking any more fundamental justification. 代写英国论文It is in this
blindness that we fail to see truth. The truth, so far as English law is concerned, that a very large
amount of the law on jurisdiction, but also on choice of law,
12
is dependent on the very private
law notions of consent and obligation. This is a large point, with many ramifications, and we will
need to return to it from time to time. It is first necessary to understand this, though, because it
explains much of what is truly fundamental to the common law approach to jurisdiction.
First, if the parties to a dispute wish the English court to exercise jurisdiction, the court
will do so. Submission to the court is a fundamental principle of jurisdictional competence. If P
wishes to sue in England and D is prepared to defend in England, the court has no power to
decline to adjudicate on the ground that another court would be far better placed to do so.
本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。