jurisdiction. Indeed, the decade-long negotiations at The Hague on a judgments convention hun up on national differences over the appropriate jurisdictional provisions, although also uncovering other formidable roadblocks to success I submit that these tendencies to stress jurisdiction--on the part of teachers, lawyers, courts, and negotiators, respectively--are not irrational at all. In several senses, jurisdiction is the queen of private international law doctrines. It deserves its emphasis. It is a place to begin seeking cooperative development of private international law and international private law. And it place to begin not only because its importance in practice and theory pleads for international agreement, but also because apparent national differences suggest that it will prove to be a stickin point in any negotiations. I. IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION IN PRACTICE AND THEORY A. Forum Really Affects Outcome What is the actual effect of forum selection on the outcome of cases? practitioners and policymakers share an obvious interest in this question. Ted Eisenberg and I have previously used empirical methods to investigate the effect of forum in the context of removal from state to federal court24 and in the context of transfer of venue between federal district courts 25 Utilizing a database of the three million civil cases terminated in the federal district courts over recent years, the research 2See Samuel P Baumgartner, The Proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments: Where We Are and the road Ahead, 4 EUR J. L REFORM 219(2002); Kevin M. Clermont, An Introduction to the Hague Convention, in A GLOBAL LAW OF JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS: LESSONS FROM THE HAGUE 3 ( John J. Barcelo lll& Kevin M. Clermont eds, 2002); Kevin M. Clermont, Jurisd ictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty, 85 CORNELL L Rev.89(1999) [hereinafter Salvation See Arthur Taylor von Mehren, Theory and Practice of Adjudicatory Authority in Private InternationalLaw A Comparative Study of the Doctrine, Policies and Practices of Common- and Civil-Law Systems, 295 RECUEIL DES COURS 9, 408-25 (2002). For the latest suggestion ofthe content of any eventual convention, which would treat exclusive choice-of-court agreements in business to-business contracts, see the Hague Conference on Private International Law Websiteathttp://www.hcch.net/e/workprog/jdgm.htmlPeterD.Trooboff,Choice-of-courtClausesNatll.j.,Jan. 2004, at 14; Hague Delegates Find Consensus, Narrow Disputes, As Diplomatic Conference Nears, 72 U.S. L w 2689(2004). Kevin M. Clermont Theodore Eisenberg, Do Case Outcomes Really Reveal Anything About the Legal System? Win Rates and Removal Jurisdiction, 83 CORNELL L REv. 581(1998)(discussing removal under 28 U.S.C. S 1441)[hereinafter Removal. Forum-Shopping, supra note 16(discussing transfer under 28 U.SC.$ 1404(a), which provides: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought. ") see also Kevin M. Clermont Theodore Eisenberg, Simplifying the Choice of Forum: A Reply, 75 WASH. U.L.Q. 1551(1997)5 22See Samuel P. Baumgartner, The Proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments: Where We Are and the Road Ahead, 4 EUR. J.L. RE FO RM 219 (2002); Kevin M. Clermont, An Introduction to the Hague Convention, in A GLOBAL LAW OF JURISDICTION AND JUDGM ENTS: LE SSONS FROM THE HAGUE 3 (John J. Barceló III & Kevin M. Clermont eds., 2002); Kevin M. Clermont, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty, 85 COR NELL L. REV. 89 (1999) [hereinafter Salvation]. 23See Arthur Taylor von Mehren, Theory and Practice of Adjudicatory Authority in Private International Law: A Comparative Study of the Doctrine, Policies and Practices of Common- and Civil-Law Systems, 295 RECUEIL DES COURS 9, 408-25 (2002). For the latest suggestion of the content of any eventual convention, which would treat exclusive choice-of-court agreements in business-to-business contracts, see the Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Website, at http://www.hcch.net/e/workprog/jdgm.html; Peter D. Trooboff, Choice-of-Court Clauses, NAT’L L.J., Jan. 19, 2004, at 14; Hague Delegates Find Consensus, Narrow Disputes, As Diplomatic Conference Nears, 72 U.S.L.W. 2689 (2004). 24Kevin M. Clermont & Theodore Eisenberg, Do Case Outcomes Really Reveal Anything About the Legal System? Win Rates and Removal Jurisdiction, 83 COR NELL L. REV. 581 (1998) (discussing removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441) [hereinafter Removal]. 25Forum-Shopping, supra note 16 (discussing transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”);see also Kevin M. Clermont & Theodore Eisenberg, Simplifying the Choice of Forum: A Reply, 75 WASH. U. L.Q. 1551 (1997). jurisdiction.22 Indeed, the decade-long negotiations at The Hague on a judgments convention hung up on national differences over the appropriate jurisdictional provisions, although also uncovering other formidable roadblocks to success.23 I submit that these tendencies to stress jurisdiction—on the part of teachers, lawyers, courts, and negotiators, respectively—are not irrational at all. In several senses, jurisdiction is the queen of private international law doctrines. It deserves its emphasis. It is a place to begin seeking “cooperative development of private international law and international private law.” And it is a place to begin not only because its importance in practice and theory pleads for international agreement, but also because apparent national differences suggest that it will prove to be a sticking point in any negotiations. II.IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION IN PRACTICE AND THEORY A. Forum Really Affects Outcome What is the actual effect of forum selection on the outcome of cases? Practitioners and policymakers share an obvious interest in this question. Ted Eisenberg and I have previously used empirical methods to investigate the effect of forum in the context of removal from state to federal court24 and in the context of transfer of venue between federal district courts.25 Utilizing a database of the three million civil cases terminated in the federal district courts over recent years, the research