What are the differences between forum non conveniens and res judicata in international litigation?

In international litigation, forum non conveniens and res judicata are two distinct principles. Forum non conveniens is a discretionary power of the court to decline jurisdiction in a case when it finds that another court is a more fitting venue for the dispute. Res judicata, on the other hand, is a matter of law that prevents a party from litigating an issue that has already been decided by a competent court. Forum non conveniens is usually dependent upon the judge’s personal opinion, and may consider several factors, such as ease of access to key witnesses or the amount of resources required to litigate the case. It is also sometimes used to avoid conflicts between different laws. When a judge uses forum non conveniens, he or she is essentially deciding that a better court to handle the matter is somewhere else. Res judicata, on the other hand, is an established legal principle that bars a party from relitigating an issue that has already been decided by a competent court in the past. It is based upon the principle of finality and is meant to prevent endless litigation over the same matter. The res judicata principle applies regardless of the jurisdiction in which the original dispute was litigated or whether the original decision was made in an international court, in a domestic state court, or in a federal court. In summary, forum non conveniens is a discretionary power of the court to decline jurisdiction when a better court is available, whereas res judicata is a legal principle that prevents a party from litigating a previously decided issue. These two principles are both important aspects of international litigation law in North Carolina.

What are the differences between forum non conveniens and res judicata in international litigation?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts