Doubling Down on Litigation Isolationism
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5147240 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Pamela K Bookman (Fordham University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 110 |
| Pages | 57-61 |
| Publication date | 2016-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | AJIL Unbound (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2398-7723 • E-ISSN: 2398-7723 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s2398772300002403 |
| OpenAlex | W2507882706 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 3 |
Last year in the Stanford Law Review, I described an emerging trend in U.S. courts: litigation isolationism. Through developments in personal jurisdiction,forum non conveniens, international comity, and the presumption against extraterritoriality, I argued, courts have developed increasingly strong tools for avoiding transnational litigation. Decisions advancing litigation isolationism often fail to accomplish their stated goals-typically promoting separation of powers, avoiding interstate friction, and protecting defendants from the inconvenience of U.S. litigation. They also undermine important U.S. interests, often by excluding or dismissing cases that have close ties to the United States. At the end of that article, I cautioned against the continuation of the trend
Adjudication · Comity · Economics · Expansionism · Extraterritoriality · Foreign policy · Isolationism · Jurisdiction · Law and economics · Litigation risk analysis · Personal jurisdiction · Political science · Supreme court · Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction · Corporate Law and Human Rights · International Arbitration and Investment Law · Law
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,1 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2016 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |