Is a global regime regulating the exercise of jurisdiction in civil and commercial cases a feasible reality or a utopian dream? : a comparative perspective

The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate whether it is possible to create a global jurisdiction and judgements convention governing civil and commercial matters in light of the recent inability at The Hague to produce an acceptable text on the subject. In order to ascertain whether this failure means that it is impossible to achieve a worldwide convention, this thesis compares the jurisdictional regimes of the United States, the Brussels Regime and the traditional rules of England to determine whether the differences operating under these systems are irreconcilable. It is revealed that litigants often exploit divergences stemming from these systems, altering the balance between the parties and causing unfairness. These revelations highlight the benefits to be gained from a unified, solitary jurisdiction and judgements system. This leads to the question as to whether these benefits carry sufficient weight to procure a text on the subject after these advantages failed to tempt the delegations at The Hague after a decade of work on the project. From these discussions, this thesis identifies several factors that contributed to the downfall of the project at The Hague, which include the United States' insistence that the provisions operate within constitutional restrictions, an inappropriate methodology based on compromise and discontent with the provisions and general approach of the suggested text. The strict adherence to using the Brussels Regime as a 'model' for the text also substantially contributed to the downfall of the project. However, it was apparent that the problems stemming from the reconciliation of the civil and common law traditions had little effect on the outcome.