미국 州 법원의 확대관할 (The extent and validity of US long-arm jurisdiction)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 미국헌법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 미국헌법연구 / 20권 / 2호 / 317 ~ 343페이지
· 저자명 : 가정준

초록

연방 법원과 주 법원의 재판관할권, 그리고 주 법원이 행사할 수 있는 재판관할권의 한계는 연방 헌법과 밀접한 관련이 있다. 주 법원이 비거주 당사자를 상대로 인적관할을 확대할 수 있는지 여부는 헌법상 문제뿐만 아니라 국제소송을 중심으로 한 국제사법 문제와도 깊은 관련이 있다. 50개 주로 구성된 미연방합중국은 이미 주 법원이 얼마나 그리고 어떻게 관할을 확대해 왔는지 판례와 입법을 통해 많은 것을 시사하고 있다. 특히 확대관할과 관련한 중요한 원리를 제공한 International Shoe Co. v. Washington 판례는 현대 “확대관할법”의 기초까지 제공하였다. 이러한 원리의 출발점은 연방 헌법상의 “적법절차”의 원리라는 점은 미국 헌법 연구뿐만 아니라 국제사법에 있어서 많은 것들을 생각하게 한다. 무엇보다도 주민은 州 정부로부터 “정당한 법 절차를 따르지 않고 개인의 생명, 자유, 또는 재산을 박탈할 수 없다”고 규정한 수정 헌법 제14조의 원리를 “인적관할권”을 행사하기 위해서는 州 법원도 지킬 것을 요구하고 있다. 이를 위한 “열거주의”에 입각하여 “확대관할법”의 입법화 역시 “적법절차”를 기초로 하고 있다는 점은 헌법의 원리가 어떻게 법률에 투영되고 있는지를 알려주는 좋은 주제라고 생각한다.

영어초록

With ever-increasing interstate and international movement, conflicts of law and jurisdiction can be readily observed in American judicial systems. This paper will discuss the extent and validity of US long-arm jurisdiction over non-resident parties outside territorial jurisdiction. How far can the arm of justice go and still be considered non-intrusive to the non-resident party? Where is the border of jurisdictional authority in a federal system where every state maintains its autonomy to a degree guaranteed by the Constitution? Both civil and criminal issues will be examined in this paper, with examples of legal persona ranging from non-resident criminal defendants to foreign civil parties. When deciding jurisdictional claims, the court must carefully balance the interests of state sovereignty and constitutional rights of due process.
By natural law, all humans are presumed to enjoy fundamental rights such as the right to a fair process of law. In today’s market economy, corporations also claim to have access to the privilege of due process to some extent under the law. When granting jurisdiction over a non-resident party, a court must inquire whether the necessity to redress a wrongdoing behavior has sufficient weight to infringe upon the party’s rights and privileges. This paper will examine the long-arm jurisdiction in American courts.
The concept of state sovereignty in respect to jurisdiction has been a sensitive topic of discussion in the federalist United States legal system from early on. The issue encompasses both political and legal fields of study, as it touches upon the state’s governmental rights to exert its legal authority as well as the person’s civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution. A basic principle was expressed in the case-law of Pennoyer v. Neff, which stated that a state has power over persons within its geographic territory.
With increasing commerce and rapid advancement in transportation technology in upcoming years, however, interstate and international legal disputes across borders grew commonplace. State courts felt a further need evolve on Pennoyer and expand their jurisdictions outside their territories to reach out to non-resident parties. The changing circumstances of the modern society gave birth to International Shoe Co. v. Washington. International Shoe established the principle of "minimum contacts"which requires minimal amount of contacts between the forum state and the non-resident party for the court to exercise jurisdiction. This principle provided the foundations for modern long-arm jurisdiction doctrine by identifying two types of minimum contacts that a non-resident party could have with the forum state. The first category consists of the party’s activity within the forum state directly related to the controversy in question, useful for justifying assertion of specific jurisdiction. The second category, employed to validate the court’s exercise of general jurisdiction, consists of the non-resident party’s unrelated contacts with the forum.
The International Shoe court not only put into test the mechanical or quantitative characteristics of the non-resident party’s contact with the forum state. Whether due process is satisfied also depended upon the quality and nature of the activity. In examining the quality of contacts, International Shoe upheld that the maintenance of the lawsuit in the forum must not involve unreasonable or undue procedure to the appellant. Critics of International Shoe frequently point out that both "minimum contacts" and "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"doctrines are too vague to understand and apply in practice. Especially, words such as "fair play" and "justice" carry a "strong emotional appeal" that is not easy to define in the courtroom.
A codification of the case law was necessary to authorize the long arm of the law and ease the burden on the state courts. Once it is determined in a case that a statutory authority exists in a state court, then it was only necessary to decide whether the Constitution would allow the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Many states articulated the specific circumstances under which they would attempt to subject non-resident party to personal jurisdiction in their courts. New York’s long-arm statute adopted this approach.

참고자료

· 없음