The impact of federalism over the formation of personal jurisdiction rules in two different legal traditions: Limited comparison to the civil law model of the United Arab Emirates and the common law model of the United States.

摘要

In the last decade, a massive growth of international trade and cross-border commercial and civil transactions occur among individuals and entities of different jurisdictions and legal backgrounds, this international trend results in corresponding conflicts. This fact makes it critical to identify the nature of process involving the dispute resolution mechanisms under the various legal systems especially those rules addressing the instances in which a person is held subject to certain foreign adjudicative authority because of the contact.; In general, there is always a need in some circumstances to analyze the frameworks under one system to explore the nature of the standards adopted by the system to determine their efficiency, effectiveness or in some instances suggest reform.; The study will undertake the task of identifying the nature of the rules employed in the United Arab Emirates and the United States federal system, to assert personal jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in both national and international levels. It also addresses the main differences and grounds of similarities as well as how far courts in the two studied systems can go in exercising its adjudicative authorities over litigants whom are not subject to the territorial adjudicative power of the system.; The study will also explore the nature of one-system foundations of adjudicating actions that have originated outside, and the nature of effect or contact considered as a sufficient base for granting jurisdiction therein. Their structures and implementations are examined in three parts.; The first is a survey of the legislative framework of ekhtesas shakhsy (personal jurisdiction) in the federal system of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the second is the law of personal jurisdiction in the United States. The third part is personal conclusion drawn based on the study of the two models in an attempt to choose the correct mix of rules and procedures, as well as assisting whether international standards are needed and the potential of success of such global procedural standards.