دکترین دادگاه نامناسب و توسعه آن در حقوق پادشاهی متحده و ایالات متحده آمریکا

دکترین دادگاه نامناسب در کامن‌لا اعمال می‌شود و به دادگاهی که دعوا در آن اقامه شده اجازه می‌دهد صلاحدید خود را اعمال کند و چنانچه دادگاه کشور دیگری را برای رسیدگی به دعوا مناسب‌تر تشخیص دهد از رسیدگی به دعوا به نفع دادگاه مناسب‌تر عدول کند. دکترین مذکور توسط کشورهای تابع خانواده حقوقی کامن‌لا همانند ایالات متحده آمریکا، پادشاهی متحده، کانادا و استرالیا پذیرفته شده و رشد پیدا کرده است. مقاله حاضر ضمن معرفی دکترین دادگاه نامناسب در حقوق ایالات متحده آمریکا و پادشاهی متحده به تبیین دلیل ابداع چنین دکترینی در کشورهای کامن‌لا می‌پردازد و شرایط دقیق اعمال این دکترین را تشریح می‌نماید. مقاله نشان می‌دهد اجتناب از آثار نامطلوب قاعده سنتی صلاحیت شخصی مبتنی بر وجود خوانده و تحویل ابلاغیه به او در کشور دادگاه، دلیل ابتکار دکترین دادگاه نامناسب در کشورهای کامن‌لا است. همچنین چنانچه دادگاهی که دعوا در آن مطرح شده خود را برای رسیدگی به اختلاف، نامناسب و دادگاه کشور دیگری را برای رسیدگی به دعوا مناسب‌تر بداند، شرایط اعمال چنین دکترینی فراهم است.

the doctrine of forum non conveniens and its development in the uk and usa

according to the doctrine of forum non conveniens , which originated in common law, a court that has jurisdiction over a case may suspend proceedings or dismiss the case, provided that the other court is more appropriate for adjudicating the dispute. this doctrine, which first emerged in scotland and later spread to england, the united states, and other common law countries, has undergone various transformations since its inception in the early seventeenth century. this study, in addition to examining the reasons behind the emergence of this doctrine, clarifies the conditions for its application, namely the existence of an alternative competent court and the appropriateness of another court . although under iranian law, a court with jurisdiction over an international dispute cannot refuse to hear the case and apply the doctrine of inappropriate forum just because a foreign court might be more appropriate. but this article seeks to introduce the common law doctrine into iranian legal doctrine to encourage legislator to develop comprehensive and effective legal frameworks for addressing international legal disputes. this study employs a descriptive analytical research methodology, utilizing a comparative approach to examine the legal systems of the united kingdom and the united states, explaining the reliance on legal doctrine and case law from both jurisdictions, the paper explores the conditions under which the doctrine of forum non conveniens is applied. so that in this way, the objective is not only to trace the historical evolution of the doctrine but also to highlight the variations in its application across these two systems. the research is based on the library research method. scottish courts have taken a relatively flexible approach to applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and if they are convinced that there is another competent court which can deal with the case more appropriately from the perspective of the interests of the parties and the requirements of justice, they apply the mentioned doctrine. in england, courts initially invoked the doctrine only if two conditions were met: first, the defendant had to demonstrate that bringing the case in england was oppressive or vexatious; and second, that the same case had already been filed in a foreign court. over time, the first condition alone came to be viewed as sufficient. however, today, english courts have moved closer to the scottish approach: if the court concludes that it is not the appropriate forum and another court is more appropriate, it will apply the doctrine. in the united states, forum non conveniens was initially applied in domestic cases and later extended to international disputes. the criteria for applying the doctrine in both types of disputes are the same: (1) there must be an alternative competent forum, and (2) that forum must be more appropriate for resolving the dispute. in determining the appropriateness of another court, american courts must consider both private and public interest factors, which include, among others, “access to sources of proof”, “congestion in the courts”, and “local interest in the litigation”. although the forum non conveniens doctrine can help a case be heard in a more appropriate court and make it easier to recognize and enforce the judgment, it also has some disadvantages. the most significant challenge is the lack of predictability regarding the competent forum and the eventual outcome for the parties involved. another concern is the risk of parallel proceedings, which the doctrine cannot effectively prevent. a third issue is the potential for the parties to face a denial of justice. of course, this problem will arise if the court rejects the dispute, but such a problem will not occur if the dispute is suspended until a more appropriate court makes a decision.