Models for the Unification of Rules on International Jurisdiction: Between the «Mixed Convention» and Functional Unification

Abstract

This article examines models for the international legal unification of rules governing the international jurisdiction of domestic courts in cross-border civil and commercial disputes. The study is timely because, despite the long-standing efforts of the Hague Conference on Private International Law regarding the International Jurisdiction Project, a universal system of rules for direct international jurisdiction has yet to be established. The article analyses the primary models of international treaty-based regulation: single conventions, double conventions, and mixed conventions. Particular attention is paid to the mixed convention concept, which combines internationally agreed jurisdictional grounds, exorbitant grounds (the application of which is to be restricted), and a sphere in which states retain the ability to apply their own rules of international jurisdiction. The study traces the evolution of the International Jurisdiction Project — from attempts to create a comprehensive convention in the late 20th and early 21st centuries to the adoption of the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, as well as ongoing work on rules addressing parallel proceedings and related claims. It also analyses the relationship between direct and indirect international jurisdiction and examines the differences between civil law and common law approaches to determining court competence and coordinating competing proceedings. The study substantiates the expediency of using the concept of "step-by-step unification” to describe a method of developing international regulation wherein specific components of international jurisdiction are harmonised sequentially through the adoption of interconnected international treaties. It is determined that the effectiveness of this approach depends on ensuring regulatory compatibility among the relevant treaties, as well as consistency in their terminology, jurisdictional nexus criteria, and rules governing their interrelationship. It is established that the “mixed convention" model and step-by-step unification are not mutually exclusive: a mixed convention can define the future regulatory architecture of universal regulation, whereas step-by-step unification can serve as a means of gradually shaping its regulatory foundation. The conclusion is drawn that the most realistic prospect for broad international legal unification lies in the sequential harmonisation of specific rules, with the possibility of their subsequent consolidation or supplementation with rules on direct international jurisdiction within a new international treaty or an additional protocol.