The discretionary exercise of jurisdiction in private international law.

Summary The study undertaken in this thesis concerns the power that should be granted to the judge to assess the appropriateness of exercising his own jurisdiction in an international dispute. The subject is brought back to the theme of the possibility and advisability of transplanting into French private international law the doctrine of the forum non convenions experimented in the common law systems, a first part is devoted to the development of the model in the common law countries. After a historical and comparative overview of the different expressions of discretionary power, it is undertaken to unify and develop a doctrine of forum non convenions. The latter can be reduced to the jurisdictional expression of the principle of proximity. This result makes it possible to envisage the adaptation of a moderating power in French private international judicial law. The action of this power is first examined against the privileges of articles 14 and 15 of the civil code. But cases of procedural injustice can also be found in the Brussels Convention law. The other area where a moderating power could usefully be admitted is that of positive conflicts of jurisdiction. It remains that in both of these fields, European treaty law is opposed to the action of a moderating power. As for French common international law, it could only accept this instrument in a restricted manner. The restrictive status of this power is finally reflected in the establishment of a strict regime surrounding its implementation. Thus, in addition to the cumulative substantive conditions for the acceptance of the exception, an exhaustive list of factors that the judge would be authorized to take into consideration is added. Finally, the Court of Cassation should be authorized to exercise its control over the use of their power by the judges of the merits and a procedural status of the exception is elaborated in order to channel the judge's freedom as well as possible.