Abstract
I begin with certain basic premises of international law. Customary international law does not or at the very least does not ordinarily dictate the decisions of a state regarding which civil cases it courts will and will not hear. The most obvious manifestation of this premise is that rules regarding access to and the authority of courts differ. Disputes between states regarding the exercise of jurisdiction in civil cases typically involve assertions that a state (or its court) has exceeded its jurisdiction, not that it has breached an international duty by failing to hear a case. I am aware of no rule of customary international law to the effect that plaintiffs choice of forum must be honored or extinguishes the jurisdiction of other courts. The right to determine access to its courts is a right unquestionably enjoyed by a Latin American state. It is also a right unquestionably enjoyed by the United States. Neither can force a civil case into the courts of the other against its will. And while