s enemy territory: a jurisdiction where the prevailing law, available remedies, courtroom procedures, and jurorattitudes [las well as quality and character of judges and also geographic convenience and cost considerations] are inimical to your client. A correct choice and, as Don Corleone once said, "They will fear you. 5 Likewise, for this and many other reasons, teachers cannot be faulted for giving the subject undue attention Some academics, however, have argued that the forum should not matter so much to practitioners. The notion that either party will be unable to defend or pursue in a distant forum in the vast majority of interstate cases. . ignores the realities of civil litigation. At the least, say other commentators, the courts themselves should worry less about territorial authority to adjudicate Because no fundamental liberty interest is at stake, society would be better off if it just abandoned the restraints of law on forum and let courts discretionarily decide whether to entertain a nonlocal case;all that law on territorial authority to adjudicate, then, "is really a solution in search of a problem. I disagree. The choice of forum has a tremendous impact on the chance of winning and hence on the value of settlement, and at least the practitioners know so. Basic faimess is at stake, and accordingly lawmakers should worry about the law of territorial authority to adjudicate Here comes the significant observation. All of the foregoing discussion on the importance of forum concerned litigation within the United States Consider now international litigation. The choice of forum becomes much more important. Shifting inconveniences and changing biases from one forum to a foreign forum become staggeringly effective. Moreover, the differences in substantive and procedural law--as well as the matters ofremedies and expenses-dwarf the small variations within American law. What is the forum's law on antitrust, will there be a jury, how big will the damages be fixed and will they be trebled, and can the plaintiffs lawyer proceed on a contingent fee and will the loser have to pay the winner's expenses? Because of all these differences, international litigators and the various national legal systems really need to worry about the law of territorial authority to adjudicate--the law on where a plaintiff can demand a defendants"hanging B Jurisdictional harmonization Remains desirable When thinking ofjurisdiction, one tends to think mainly in terms of the difference in law that turns on selected forum but as the removal and transfer studies show cultural and institutional differences have a huge impact too. Consider three aspects of each of the cultural, institutional, and legal sets of differences Gita F. Rothschild, Forum Shopping, LITIG Spring 1998, at 40, 40 PAtrick J. Borchers, The Death of the Cons titutional Law of Personal Jurisdiction: From Pennoyer to Burnham and Back A gain, 24 U.C. DAVIS L REv. 19, 95(1990). 32Wendy Collins Per due, Personal Jurisdiction and the Beetle in the Box, 32 B C L REV. 529, 530(1991) See Kimberly A. Moore, Xenophobia in American Courts, 97 Nw. U.L. REv. 1497, 1499-501 (2003) (stressing ethnocentric biases); Utpal Bhattacharya, Neal Galpin Bruce Haslem, The Home Court Advantage in Intermational Corporate Litigation(Feb 2004)(manuscript on file with author ); cf Xenophilia, supra note 27(showing a strong case-selection effect in data from 1986-1994)8 30Gita F. Rothschild, Forum Shopping, LITIG., Spring 1998, at 40, 40. 31Patrick J. Borchers, The Death of the Constitutional Law of Personal Jurisdiction: From Pennoyer to Burnham and Back Again, 24 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 19, 95 (1990). 32Wendy Collins Perdue, Personal Jurisdiction and the Beetle in the Box, 32 B.C. L. REV. 529, 530 (1991). 33See Kimberly A. Moore, Xenophobia in American Courts, 97 NW. U. L. REV. 1497, 1499-501 (2003) (stressing ethnocentric biases); Utpal Bhattacharya, Neal Galpin & Bruce Haslem, The Home Court Advantage in International Corporate Litigation (Feb. 2004) (manuscript on file with author); cf. Xenophilia, supra note 27 (showing a strong case-selection effect in data from 1986-1994). it’s enemy territory: a jurisdiction where the prevailing law, available remedies, courtroom procedures, and juror attitudes [as well as quality and character of judges and also geographic convenience and cost considerations] are inimical to your client. A correct choice and, as Don Corleone once said, “They will fear you.”30 Likewise, for this and many other reasons, teachers cannot be faulted for giving the subject undue attention. Some academics, however, have argued that the forum should not matter so much to practitioners. “The notion that either party will be unable to defend or pursue in a distant forum in the vast majority of interstate cases . . . ignores the realities of civil litigation.”31 At the least, say other commentators, the courtsthemselves should worry less about territorial authority to adjudicate. Because no fundamental liberty interest is at stake, society would be better off if it just abandoned the restraints of law on forum and let courts discretionarily decide whether to entertain a nonlocal case; all that law on territorial authority to adjudicate, then, “is really a solution in search of a problem.”32 I disagree. The choice of forum has a tremendous impact on the chance of winning and hence on the value of settlement, and at least the practitioners know so. Basic fairness is at stake, and accordingly lawmakers should worry about the law of territorial authority to adjudicate. Here comes the significant observation. All of the foregoing discussion on the importance of forum concerned litigation within the United States. Consider now international litigation. The choice of forum becomes much more important. Shifting inconveniences and changing biases from one forum to a foreign forum become staggeringly effective.33 Moreover, the differences in substantive and procedural law—as well as the matters of remedies and expenses—dwarf the small variations within American law. What is the forum’s law on antitrust, will there be a jury, how big will the damages be fixed and will they be trebled, and can the plaintiff’s lawyer proceed on a contingent fee and will the loser have to pay the winner’s expenses? Because of all these differences, international litigators and the various national legal systems really need to worry about the law of territorial authority to adjudicate—the law on where a plaintiff can demand a defendant’s “hanging”! B. Jurisdictional Harmonization Remains Desirable When thinking of jurisdiction, one tends to think mainly in terms of the difference in law that turns on selected forum, but as the removal and transfer studies show, cultural and institutional differences have a huge impact too. Consider three aspects of each of the cultural, institutional, and legal sets of differences: