Reconciling Transnational Jurisdiction

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of recent cases, has restricted personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants -- and foreign corporations in particular. The Supreme Court's restrictions are -- although a peripheral concern -- motivated by an interest for international comity and an effort to bring US jurisdiction rules more in line with other nations' laws. However, an in-depth comparative analysis between the EU Brussels Regulation and U.S. Supreme Court opinions reveals that the Supreme Court's decisions remain deeply grounded in the traditional U.S. paradigm of personal jurisdiction. The persisting differences help explain why further harmonization of U.S. jurisdiction rules with EU law remains difficult. Predictability appears to have different meanings to the EU legislator and the U.S. Supreme Court. For the Supreme Court, predictability comes at the price of restricting both general and specific jurisdiction to limit exposure of the alien defendant to fewer potential forums. The Brussels Regulation in contrast provides a lengthy, but exhaustive, list of special heads of jurisdiction. It thereby extends what U.S. law would call specific jurisdiction and takes into account the interests of defendants, plaintiffs, and the forum State, both as a matter of public policy and sovereignty. Hence, the Regulation's use of clearly defined connecting factors in lieu of imprecise legal terms, combined with European rejection of judicial discretion, could serve as a model to mitigate the shortcomings of the current U.S. regime.