the inconveniences of distant litigation will never drop to zero local biases will always remain at play the particular social context, including language and culture, will inevitably affect the realm of social ordering that is given over to litigation differs widely from country to country; courts show great differences in nature and qualit lawyers'roles, and the expense and funding of litigation, likewise differ greatly procedural law varies in surprisingly deep and contentious ways substantive law of course. still exhibits wide variation: and choice-of-law doctrines, as applied, fail to eliminate differences in governing law What this list means is that a lot rides on where a case is heard. It is critical to ensure that litigation takes place in an appropriate forum, that is, to divvy up the cases in a way so that all can accept the forums putting its parochial spin on the dispute The reformist goal of jurisdictional regulation and harmonization fits with the traditional ideal of private international law Its aim is not the uniformity of law in general; on the contrary, this system is the modus vivendi by which purely territorial systems with all their peculiarities and national haracteristics can exist side by side. The ideal, to which it is working is that no two municipal courts shall be forced, by the systems of law which they apply, to give different judgments on the same state of facts. To achieve such an ideal it is not necessary that the way, but merely that their systems of private International Law shall be the same er in any purely territorial systems of law of different countries shall approximate to each othe Private International Law, properly conceived, never directly creates legal rights or liabilities: that is the function of the purely territorial branches of law. Hence, it is not like the latter, a creation of the national consciousness which in its development must be free to follow the national genius. It can, therefore, much more easily be moulded in sympathy with external thought and influence. Now, as we all know, it turns out that reaching agreement on nonjurisdictional aspects of private international law is not all that easy: Universal conventions regulating choice of law have had only limited impact in reducing the potential for forum shopping; "decisional harmony, which traditionally private international law theory, especially in Continental Europe, thought would end the practice y ensuring uniformity in the applicable substantive rules, has proved to be a mirage If all forums actually applied the same choice-of-law rules, the advantage enjoyed by the party that selects the forum would be reduced, though by no means entirely eliminated. In all events, as a new century dawns, achieving decisional harmony through universal international conventions regulating choice of law seems even more elusive than when the twentieth This roadblock explains the recent emphasis on jurisdictional regulation and harmonization. My Beckett, supra note 9, at 95-96 35von Mehren, supra note 23, at 312(footnote omitted)9 34Beckett, supra note 9, at 95-96. 35von Mehren, supra note 23, at 312 (footnote omitted). ! the inconveniences of distant litigation will never drop to zero; ! local biases will always remain at play; ! the particular social context, including language and culture, will inevitably affect litigation; ‚ the realm of social ordering that is given over to litigation differs widely from country to country; ‚ courts show great differences in nature and quality; ‚ lawyers’ roles, and the expense and funding of litigation, likewise differ greatly; # procedural law varies in surprisingly deep and contentious ways; # substantive law, of course, still exhibits wide variation; and # choice-of-law doctrines, as applied, fail to eliminate differences in governing law. What this list means is that a lot rides on where a case is heard. It is critical to ensure that litigation takes place in an appropriate forum, that is, to divvy up the cases in a way so that all can accept the forum’s putting its parochial spin on the dispute. The reformist goal of jurisdictional regulation and harmonization fits with the traditional ideal of private international law: Its aim is not the uniformity of law in general; on the contrary, this system is the modus vivendi by which purely territorial systems with all their peculiarities and national characteristics can exist side by side. The ideal, to which it is working is that no two municipal courts shall be forced, by the systems of law which they apply, to give different judgments on the same state of facts. To achieve such an ideal it is not necessary that the purely territorial systems of law of different countries shall approximate to each other in any way, but merely that their systems of Private International Law shall be the same. . . . Private International Law, properly conceived, never directly creates legal rights or liabilities: that is the function of the purely territorial branches of law. Hence, it is not like the latter, a creation of the national consciousness which in its development must be free to follow the national genius. It can, therefore, much more easily be moulded in sympathy with external thought and influence.34 Now, as we all know, it turns out that reaching agreement on nonjurisdictional aspects of private international law is not all that easy: Universal conventions regulating choice of law have had only limited impact in reducing the potential for forum shopping; “decisional harmony,” which traditionally private international law theory, especially in Continental Europe, thought would end the practice by ensuring uniformity in the applicable substantive rules, has proved to be a mirage. If all forums actually applied the same choice-of-law rules, the advantage enjoyed by the party that selects the forum would be reduced, though by no means entirely eliminated. In all events, as a new century dawns, achieving decisional harmony through universal international conventions regulating choice of law seems even more elusive than when the twentieth century began.35 This roadblock explains the recent emphasis on jurisdictional regulation and harmonization. My