Towards a More Balanced Approach to Forum Non Conveniens

Junsong Huang*

In the past four decades, many foreign claimants have sought to hold multinational corporations accountable in U.S. courts for human rights abuses committed abroad. These efforts, however, often fail on forum non conveniens grounds. By design, the American approach to forum non conveniens tends to prioritize comity and the interest of the forum over that of foreign claimants. As a result, defendants in international human rights litigation can readily demonstrate the avail- ability of an adequate alternative forum (usually the foreign claimants’ home jurisdiction) that offers a more appropriate venue than the United States.

On the contrary, English courts have increasingly emphasized the need to realistically assess whether substantial justice can be obtained in the alternative forum. To create a level playing field, this Note argues for a reform of the American forum non conveniens doctrine based on the English model. By adopting a more balanced approach to forum non conveniens, American courts could continue to uphold respect for comity while affording meaningful access to justice for foreign claimants.

* Managing Editor, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law; J.D., Columbia Law School, 2026； LL.B., University College London, 2026. He is deeply grateful to Professor Martin S. Flaherty for his guidance during the research process, to the CJTL editorial team for their careful edits and feedback, and, above all, to his parents, whose support made this possible.