EXAMPLE 1

International litigation is often difficult to seize because of different procedures used by States and principles laying down procedures. These principles are related to the judicial conceptions that States have adopted. This point will be adressed latter in this introduction. On the other hand, International Convention, in a general or a specific view in relation to civil and commercial matter are enacted by States in order to uniform and harmonize body of rules applicable to international commercial litigation.
For example, Lugano convention harmonized rules in order to determine competence of jurisdiction, or the Convention of Vienna on international sales of goods determines competence of jurisdiction and the law applicable. In order to explain which criterion is more important in the construction of private international law concerned with international commercial litigation, it will be relevant to focus this study on the rules of competence of jurisdiction. Besides the general system of conventions, as explained above, judicial traditions of countries can explain debates around the best ways to enact rules on international trade, and especially international litigations arise from commercial relationships between actors. Indeed, on one hand, common law countries focus on the role of the judge for the creation, the interpretation and the application of law rules. Some authors argue that the predominance of the judge in common law judicial system translates a pragmatism to resolve disputes related to civil and commercial matters. Moreover, certain procedures in the common law system will provide flexibility that economics and commercials actors need in order to conduct their businesses. On the other hand, parties can agree on competence of jurisdiction. Indeed, this competence will be determined by their choice. For practical reasons,