中美协议管辖制度之比较研究
|
摘要
协议管辖是当事人“意思自治”原则在国际民商事诉讼领域的体现，对于消除管辖权方面的冲突、增强诉讼的可预见性等有着重要意义。协议管辖原则已经成为现代国际社会中世界各国所普遍接受的一项管辖原则。目前，绝大多数国家都通过立法与判例，允许当事人在一定条件下协议选择管辖法院。本文旨在通过中美两国协议管辖立法和实践的比较研究，明确协议管辖的相关问题并试图寻找我国协议管辖制度的发展方向。
本文分为四章。第一章讨论协议管辖的一般问题，包括协议管辖发展概况，基本问题以及发展走向；第二章比较中美两国有关协议管辖的立法，涉及两国相关法律规定及具体的立法问题分析；第三章对中美两国协议管辖司法实践作了细致的比较分析，涉及协议管辖与其他管辖权、不方便法院、合理性标准、公共政策分析等重要实践问题；第四章则包括两国学理研究的比较分析以及两国在协议管辖制度上的主要区别概括，还包括在海牙民商事管辖权和判决承认公约中两国的立场和态度，以及完善我国立法的相关建议。
Contractual jurisdiction is the reflect of will autonomy in the international civil and commercial litigation. It plays an important role in the avoiding of conflict of jurisdiction and increasing the predicability of litigation itself. Contractual jurisdiction has been accepted as an world-wide recognized principle in the modern international community. Now, the majority of countries in the world have allowed the contractual choice of forum by the parties themselves through legal provision or judge-made law. This thesis explores the difference between China and the United State on the legislation and judicatory practice of contractual jurisdiction and trys to illustrate some problems about contractual jurisdiction and then looks for the way for contractual jurisdiction in our country.
The thesis contains four chapters. The first chapter details on the basic problems of contractual jurisdiction, involving the history and development trend of it; the second chapter make an comparative analysis on legal provision of contractual jurisdiction about China and the United States; the third chapter primarily focuses on the difference between the two countries' judicatory practice, it examines many concrete problems such as contractual jurisdiction and other types of jurisdiction, forum non-convenience, the standard of reasonability and public policy analysis, etc. The last chapter consists of several parts including comparative analysis on the scholar research of the two countries, the main difference of contractual jurisdiction system of them and what's the two country attitude about the new Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. In the last part, the author also presents some suggestions for the contractual jurisdiction system in our country.
本文分为四章。第一章讨论协议管辖的一般问题，包括协议管辖发展概况，基本问题以及发展走向；第二章比较中美两国有关协议管辖的立法，涉及两国相关法律规定及具体的立法问题分析；第三章对中美两国协议管辖司法实践作了细致的比较分析，涉及协议管辖与其他管辖权、不方便法院、合理性标准、公共政策分析等重要实践问题；第四章则包括两国学理研究的比较分析以及两国在协议管辖制度上的主要区别概括，还包括在海牙民商事管辖权和判决承认公约中两国的立场和态度，以及完善我国立法的相关建议。
Contractual jurisdiction is the reflect of will autonomy in the international civil and commercial litigation. It plays an important role in the avoiding of conflict of jurisdiction and increasing the predicability of litigation itself. Contractual jurisdiction has been accepted as an world-wide recognized principle in the modern international community. Now, the majority of countries in the world have allowed the contractual choice of forum by the parties themselves through legal provision or judge-made law. This thesis explores the difference between China and the United State on the legislation and judicatory practice of contractual jurisdiction and trys to illustrate some problems about contractual jurisdiction and then looks for the way for contractual jurisdiction in our country.
The thesis contains four chapters. The first chapter details on the basic problems of contractual jurisdiction, involving the history and development trend of it; the second chapter make an comparative analysis on legal provision of contractual jurisdiction about China and the United States; the third chapter primarily focuses on the difference between the two countries' judicatory practice, it examines many concrete problems such as contractual jurisdiction and other types of jurisdiction, forum non-convenience, the standard of reasonability and public policy analysis, etc. The last chapter consists of several parts including comparative analysis on the scholar research of the two countries, the main difference of contractual jurisdiction system of them and what's the two country attitude about the new Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. In the last part, the author also presents some suggestions for the contractual jurisdiction system in our country.
引文
(1) 韩德培主编：《国际私法新论》，武汉大学出版社1997年版。
(2) 韩德培：《美国国际私法(冲突法)导论》，法律出版社1994年版。
(3) 肖水平：《肖永平论冲突法》，武汉大学出版社2002年版。
(4) 张茂：《美国国际民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
(5) 李双元、谢石松著：《国际民事诉讼法概论》，武汉大学出版社2001年版。
(6) 林淮主编：《国际私法案例选编》，法律出版社1996年版。
(7) 陈隆修：《国际司法管辖权评论》，五南图书出版公司1986年版。
(8) 高凤仙著：《美国国际私法之发展趋势》，台湾商务印书馆公司1990年版。
(9) 司法院、国立政治大学法律研究所合译：《美国法律整编——国际司法》，司法院印行1986年版。
(10) 徐卉著：《涉外民商事诉讼管辖权冲突研究》，中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
(11) 吕晓莉：《国际私法上的协议管辖》，载《1999年国际法硕士论文集》第一集，武汉大学国际法资料室藏。
(12) 彭红媛：《国际私法上合意管辖问题之研究》，国立政治大学法律研究所硕士论文1994年。
(13) [德]K·茨威格特、H·克茨著，潘汉典等译：《比较法总论》，法律出版社2003年版。
(14) 中国国际私法学会：《中华人民共和国国际私法示范法》，法律出版社2000年版。
(1) 张兰兰：《国际民事诉讼协议管辖制度的发展趋势》，载《法学杂志》2000年第3期。
(2) 侯振坤、崔秀芝：《论涉外海事案件的协议管辖》，载《法商研究》1994年第2期。
(3) 魏著伟：《浅论国际民事纠纷的协议管辖》，载《律师世界》2001年第6期。
(4) 孙南申：《论国际私法中协议管辖的法律效力》，载《政治与法律》1999年第2期。
(5) 王国征：《我国涉外民事诉讼程序中协议管辖若干问题探讨》，载《中国人民大学学报》1997年第5期。
(6) 刘卫国：《论国际民事管辖权的立法趋向》，载《法商研究》2001年第6期。
(7) 奚晓明：《论我国涉外民商事诉讼中的协议管辖条款的认定(上)》，载《法律适用》2002年第192期。
(8) 奚晓明：《论我国涉外民商事诉讼中的协议管辖条款的认定(下)》，载《法律适用》2002年第193期。
(9) 王霖华：《国际民事诉讼中的协议管辖问题研究》，载《河北法学》2002年第20卷第2期。
(10) 兰瀛芳：《国际民事诉讼之排除管辖与合意管辖》，载《法律评论》第47卷第6期。
(11) 李开远：《国际民事诉讼上‘合意选择管辖法院条款(Choice-of-Forum-Clause)’之研究》，载《法律评论》第47卷第6期。
(12) 郭国汀、王崇能：《论提单管辖权条款的法律效力》，载《海事审判》1997．4。
(13) 郁志轰：《美国法院对提单管辖权条款的态度》，载《海事审判》1993．1。
(14) 李先波：《论国际民事诉讼管辖权协调的基本原则》，载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2000年第3卷。
(15) 张兰兰：《国际协议管辖权合意要件立法的比较分析——兼评我国(民事诉讼法)第244条》，载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2001年第4卷。
(16) 沈涓：《存异以求同 他石可攻玉——海牙〈民商事管辖权和外国判决公约〉(草案)与中国相关法律之比较研究》，载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2001年第4卷。
(17) 肖永平、何其生：《〈民商事管辖权和外国判决公约〉(草案)的分析》，载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2001年第4卷。
(18) 张江艳：《浅论民事协议管辖和海事协议管辖》，载《大连海事大学学报》2002年第1卷第3期。
(19) 赵阳、郭凌川：《从两起案例看提单管辖权的效力问题》，载《世界海运》1999年第2期。
(20) 罗楚湘、蔡学恩：《从一管辖权案看涉港经济合同诉讼的若干法律问题》，载《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》1999年第2期。
(20) 何群：《协议管辖可适用于我国涉外家事诉讼》，载《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》2002年第1期。
(21) 赵程涛：《一起提单管辖权条款纠纷案之我见》，载《中国海商法年刊》1999年第10卷。
(1) Gary B. Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, 3rd ed., Kluwer Law International,1996.
(2) Alab J. Mayss, Principles of Conflict of Laws, 3rd ed., Cavendish Publishing Limited, 1999.
(3) Gary B. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements, Planning, Drafting and Enforcing, Kluwer Law International, 1999.
(4) Patrick J. Borchers & Joachim Zekoll(ed.,), International Conflict of Laws for the Third Millennium, Essays in Honor of Friedrich K. Juenger, Transnational Publishers Inc., 2001.
(5) Volkmar Gessner (ed.,), Foreign Courts, Civil Litigation in Foreign Legal Cultures, Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, 1996.
(6) James J. Fawcett(ed.,), Declining Jurisdiction In Private International Law, Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1995.
(7) Lawrence Collins, Essays in International Litigation and the Conflict of Laws, Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1993.
(8) Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Litigation and the Quest for Reasonableness, Essays in Private International Law, Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1996.
(9) Stephen Cromie, International Commercial Litigation, 2nd ed., Butterworths, 1997.
(1) Antony L. Ryan, Principles of Forum Selection,103 W. Va L. Rev. 167 (2000).
(2) Diana D. Hagopian, Forum Selection Clause in California, 4 J.Legal Advoe. & Prac. 244 (2002).
(3) Jill A. Douthett, Forum Selection as a Threshold Issue: A Policyholder Perspective, 25 the Brief 14 (1995).
(4) V. Frederic Lyon & Douglas W. Ackerman, Controlling Disputes by Controlling the Forum: Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts, 22 Constr. Lawyer 15 (2002).
(5) Axel Gehringer, After Carnival Cruise and Sky Reefer: An Analysis of Forum Selection Clauses in Maritime and Aviation Transactions, 66 J. Air L. & Com. 633 (2001).
(6) James T. Brittain, Jr., A Practitioner's Guide to Forum Selection Clauses in Texas, 1 Hous. Bus. & Tax L. J. 79 (2001).
(7) Howard W.Schreiber, Appealability of a District Courts Denial of a Forum-Selection Clause Dismissal Motion: An Argument against "Canceling Out" THE BREMEN, 57 Fordham L. Rev. 463 (1998).
(8) Linda S.Mullenix, Another Choice of Forum, Another Choice of Law: Consensual Adjudicatory Procedure in Federal Court, 57 Fordham L. Rev. 297 (1988).
(9) Kevin M. Clermont & Theodore Eisenberg, Simplifying the Choice of Forum: A Reply, 75 Wash. U. L Q. 1551 (1997).
(10) Robert A. de By, Forum Selection Clauses: Substantive or Procedural for ERIE Purposes, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 1068 (1989).
(11) Young Lee, Forum Selection Clauses: Problems of Enforcement in Diversity Cases and States Courts, 35 Colum. J. Transnat'l L 663 (1997).
(12) Walter W. Heiser, Forum Selection Clauses in State Courts: Limitations on Enforcement after STEWARTand CARNIVAL CRUISE, 45 Fla.L. Rev. 361 (1993).
(13) Earl M. Maltz, Choice of Forum and Choice of Law in the Federal Courts: A Reconsideration of Erie Principles, 79 Ky. L. J. 231 (1991).
(14) Kristen Hudson Clayton, The Draft Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments and the Internet-A New Jurisdictional Framework, 36 J. Marshall L Rev. 223 (2002).
(15) Melissa Leigh Lauderdale, Forum Selection Clauses and Forum Non Conveniens in International Employment Contracts, 4 D. C. L J. Int'l L.& Prac.117 (1995).
(16) Graydon S.Staring, Forgotten Equity: The Enforcement of Forum Clauses, 30 J. Mar. L. & Com.405 (1999).
(17) Courtland H. Peterson, Conflict of Law, Comparative Law and Civil Law: Choice of Law and Forum Clauses and the Recognition of Foreign Country Judgments Revisited through the Lloyd's of London Cases, 60 La. L. Rev. 1259 (2000).
(18) Michael Traynor, An Introductory Framework for Analyzing the Proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters: U.S. and European Perspective, 6 Ann.Surv. Int'l & Comp. L 1 (2000).
(19) David A.Fitzgerald, Allen v. Lloyd's of London: A Comment on Forum Selection, 30 Conn. L. Rev. 257 (1997).
(20) John Fitzpatrick, The Lugano Convention and Western European Integration: A Comparative Analysis of Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe and the United States, 8 Conn.J. Int'l L. 695 (1993).
(21) Michael Mousa Karayanni, The Public Policy Exception to the Enforcement of Forum Selection Clauses, 34 Duq. L. Rev. 1009 (1996).
(22) James T. Brittain, Jr., Foreign Forum Selection Clauses in the Federal Courts: All in the Name of International Comity, 23 Hous. J. Int'l L 305 (2001).
(23) Phillip A. Buhler, Forum Selection and Choice of Law Clauses in International Contracts: A United States Viewpoint with Particular Reference to Maritime Contracts and Bills of Lading,27 U. Miami inter-Am. L. Rev. 1 (1995).
(24) Georges R. Delaume, Choice-of-Forum and Arbitration Clauses in the United States: A Judicial Crusade, 13 J.I.A. (1996).
(25) Michael F. Sturley, Strengthening the Presumption of Validity for Choice of Forum Clauses, 23 J.M.L& C. (1992).
(26) Michael F. Sturley, Forum Selection Clauses in Cruise Line Tickets: An Update on Congressional Action "Overruling" the Supreme Court, 24 J. M. L & C. (1993).
(27) Joseph D. Becker, Choice-of-law and Choice-of-Forum Clauses in New York, 38 I. & C. L. O. (1989).
(2) 韩德培：《美国国际私法(冲突法)导论》，法律出版社1994年版。
(3) 肖水平：《肖永平论冲突法》，武汉大学出版社2002年版。
(4) 张茂：《美国国际民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
(5) 李双元、谢石松著：《国际民事诉讼法概论》，武汉大学出版社2001年版。
(6) 林淮主编：《国际私法案例选编》，法律出版社1996年版。
(7) 陈隆修：《国际司法管辖权评论》，五南图书出版公司1986年版。
(8) 高凤仙著：《美国国际私法之发展趋势》，台湾商务印书馆公司1990年版。
(9) 司法院、国立政治大学法律研究所合译：《美国法律整编——国际司法》，司法院印行1986年版。
(10) 徐卉著：《涉外民商事诉讼管辖权冲突研究》，中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
(11) 吕晓莉：《国际私法上的协议管辖》，载《1999年国际法硕士论文集》第一集，武汉大学国际法资料室藏。
(12) 彭红媛：《国际私法上合意管辖问题之研究》，国立政治大学法律研究所硕士论文1994年。
(13) [德]K·茨威格特、H·克茨著，潘汉典等译：《比较法总论》，法律出版社2003年版。
(14) 中国国际私法学会：《中华人民共和国国际私法示范法》，法律出版社2000年版。
(1) 张兰兰：《国际民事诉讼协议管辖制度的发展趋势》，载《法学杂志》2000年第3期。
(2) 侯振坤、崔秀芝：《论涉外海事案件的协议管辖》，载《法商研究》1994年第2期。
(3) 魏著伟：《浅论国际民事纠纷的协议管辖》，载《律师世界》2001年第6期。
(4) 孙南申：《论国际私法中协议管辖的法律效力》，载《政治与法律》1999年第2期。
(5) 王国征：《我国涉外民事诉讼程序中协议管辖若干问题探讨》，载《中国人民大学学报》1997年第5期。
(6) 刘卫国：《论国际民事管辖权的立法趋向》，载《法商研究》2001年第6期。
(7) 奚晓明：《论我国涉外民商事诉讼中的协议管辖条款的认定(上)》，载《法律适用》2002年第192期。
(8) 奚晓明：《论我国涉外民商事诉讼中的协议管辖条款的认定(下)》，载《法律适用》2002年第193期。
(9) 王霖华：《国际民事诉讼中的协议管辖问题研究》，载《河北法学》2002年第20卷第2期。
(10) 兰瀛芳：《国际民事诉讼之排除管辖与合意管辖》，载《法律评论》第47卷第6期。
(11) 李开远：《国际民事诉讼上‘合意选择管辖法院条款(Choice-of-Forum-Clause)’之研究》，载《法律评论》第47卷第6期。
(12) 郭国汀、王崇能：《论提单管辖权条款的法律效力》，载《海事审判》1997．4。
(13) 郁志轰：《美国法院对提单管辖权条款的态度》，载《海事审判》1993．1。
(14) 李先波：《论国际民事诉讼管辖权协调的基本原则》，载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2000年第3卷。
(15) 张兰兰：《国际协议管辖权合意要件立法的比较分析——兼评我国(民事诉讼法)第244条》，载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2001年第4卷。
(16) 沈涓：《存异以求同 他石可攻玉——海牙〈民商事管辖权和外国判决公约〉(草案)与中国相关法律之比较研究》，载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2001年第4卷。
(17) 肖永平、何其生：《〈民商事管辖权和外国判决公约〉(草案)的分析》，载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2001年第4卷。
(18) 张江艳：《浅论民事协议管辖和海事协议管辖》，载《大连海事大学学报》2002年第1卷第3期。
(19) 赵阳、郭凌川：《从两起案例看提单管辖权的效力问题》，载《世界海运》1999年第2期。
(20) 罗楚湘、蔡学恩：《从一管辖权案看涉港经济合同诉讼的若干法律问题》，载《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》1999年第2期。
(20) 何群：《协议管辖可适用于我国涉外家事诉讼》，载《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》2002年第1期。
(21) 赵程涛：《一起提单管辖权条款纠纷案之我见》，载《中国海商法年刊》1999年第10卷。
(1) Gary B. Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, 3rd ed., Kluwer Law International,1996.
(2) Alab J. Mayss, Principles of Conflict of Laws, 3rd ed., Cavendish Publishing Limited, 1999.
(3) Gary B. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements, Planning, Drafting and Enforcing, Kluwer Law International, 1999.
(4) Patrick J. Borchers & Joachim Zekoll(ed.,), International Conflict of Laws for the Third Millennium, Essays in Honor of Friedrich K. Juenger, Transnational Publishers Inc., 2001.
(5) Volkmar Gessner (ed.,), Foreign Courts, Civil Litigation in Foreign Legal Cultures, Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, 1996.
(6) James J. Fawcett(ed.,), Declining Jurisdiction In Private International Law, Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1995.
(7) Lawrence Collins, Essays in International Litigation and the Conflict of Laws, Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1993.
(8) Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Litigation and the Quest for Reasonableness, Essays in Private International Law, Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1996.
(9) Stephen Cromie, International Commercial Litigation, 2nd ed., Butterworths, 1997.
(1) Antony L. Ryan, Principles of Forum Selection,103 W. Va L. Rev. 167 (2000).
(2) Diana D. Hagopian, Forum Selection Clause in California, 4 J.Legal Advoe. & Prac. 244 (2002).
(3) Jill A. Douthett, Forum Selection as a Threshold Issue: A Policyholder Perspective, 25 the Brief 14 (1995).
(4) V. Frederic Lyon & Douglas W. Ackerman, Controlling Disputes by Controlling the Forum: Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts, 22 Constr. Lawyer 15 (2002).
(5) Axel Gehringer, After Carnival Cruise and Sky Reefer: An Analysis of Forum Selection Clauses in Maritime and Aviation Transactions, 66 J. Air L. & Com. 633 (2001).
(6) James T. Brittain, Jr., A Practitioner's Guide to Forum Selection Clauses in Texas, 1 Hous. Bus. & Tax L. J. 79 (2001).
(7) Howard W.Schreiber, Appealability of a District Courts Denial of a Forum-Selection Clause Dismissal Motion: An Argument against "Canceling Out" THE BREMEN, 57 Fordham L. Rev. 463 (1998).
(8) Linda S.Mullenix, Another Choice of Forum, Another Choice of Law: Consensual Adjudicatory Procedure in Federal Court, 57 Fordham L. Rev. 297 (1988).
(9) Kevin M. Clermont & Theodore Eisenberg, Simplifying the Choice of Forum: A Reply, 75 Wash. U. L Q. 1551 (1997).
(10) Robert A. de By, Forum Selection Clauses: Substantive or Procedural for ERIE Purposes, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 1068 (1989).
(11) Young Lee, Forum Selection Clauses: Problems of Enforcement in Diversity Cases and States Courts, 35 Colum. J. Transnat'l L 663 (1997).
(12) Walter W. Heiser, Forum Selection Clauses in State Courts: Limitations on Enforcement after STEWARTand CARNIVAL CRUISE, 45 Fla.L. Rev. 361 (1993).
(13) Earl M. Maltz, Choice of Forum and Choice of Law in the Federal Courts: A Reconsideration of Erie Principles, 79 Ky. L. J. 231 (1991).
(14) Kristen Hudson Clayton, The Draft Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments and the Internet-A New Jurisdictional Framework, 36 J. Marshall L Rev. 223 (2002).
(15) Melissa Leigh Lauderdale, Forum Selection Clauses and Forum Non Conveniens in International Employment Contracts, 4 D. C. L J. Int'l L.& Prac.117 (1995).
(16) Graydon S.Staring, Forgotten Equity: The Enforcement of Forum Clauses, 30 J. Mar. L. & Com.405 (1999).
(17) Courtland H. Peterson, Conflict of Law, Comparative Law and Civil Law: Choice of Law and Forum Clauses and the Recognition of Foreign Country Judgments Revisited through the Lloyd's of London Cases, 60 La. L. Rev. 1259 (2000).
(18) Michael Traynor, An Introductory Framework for Analyzing the Proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters: U.S. and European Perspective, 6 Ann.Surv. Int'l & Comp. L 1 (2000).
(19) David A.Fitzgerald, Allen v. Lloyd's of London: A Comment on Forum Selection, 30 Conn. L. Rev. 257 (1997).
(20) John Fitzpatrick, The Lugano Convention and Western European Integration: A Comparative Analysis of Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe and the United States, 8 Conn.J. Int'l L. 695 (1993).
(21) Michael Mousa Karayanni, The Public Policy Exception to the Enforcement of Forum Selection Clauses, 34 Duq. L. Rev. 1009 (1996).
(22) James T. Brittain, Jr., Foreign Forum Selection Clauses in the Federal Courts: All in the Name of International Comity, 23 Hous. J. Int'l L 305 (2001).
(23) Phillip A. Buhler, Forum Selection and Choice of Law Clauses in International Contracts: A United States Viewpoint with Particular Reference to Maritime Contracts and Bills of Lading,27 U. Miami inter-Am. L. Rev. 1 (1995).
(24) Georges R. Delaume, Choice-of-Forum and Arbitration Clauses in the United States: A Judicial Crusade, 13 J.I.A. (1996).
(25) Michael F. Sturley, Strengthening the Presumption of Validity for Choice of Forum Clauses, 23 J.M.L& C. (1992).
(26) Michael F. Sturley, Forum Selection Clauses in Cruise Line Tickets: An Update on Congressional Action "Overruling" the Supreme Court, 24 J. M. L & C. (1993).
(27) Joseph D. Becker, Choice-of-law and Choice-of-Forum Clauses in New York, 38 I. & C. L. O. (1989).