Libel Tourism, where plaintiff brings action in England expecting the application of favorable English law, is forum shopping in the Internet age. Plaintiff is making use of a English forum, which gives plaintiff advantages in terms of jurisdictional rules and English substantive law. For the uniform solution of Libel Tourism, the most effective solution is to unify teh rule on jurisdiction and substantive law level.By adopting a new defamation law England followed American way of Libel resolution

Eizumi, a head investigator, gave a presentation at the Waseda University International Trade Study group meeting on May 20, 2008 on the topic "Jurisdictional Problem in E-commerce dispute". In this presentation, he followed the development of jurisdictional theory in the U.S.decisions, moving from "sliding scale" of Zippo decision to "effect test" of Calder v.Jones and further to "target approach".Shift of basic idea on judicial jurisdiction represents fluctuant thinking in the U.S.courts, although U.S.is the leading IT country, which is expected to show the model for other countries.Another presentation was made on July 15, 2009 at Waseda University International Trade Study group meeting on the topic, "ODR to settle E-commerce dispute". In this presentation Eizumi showed the need to establish the framework of ODR (Online Dispute Resolution). In B to C commerce, which occupy the majority of E-trade, consumer in most situations, claims for small amount of damages to Seller. In this situation court proceeding does not suit for the e-commerce dispute settlement in terms of cost and time. ODR is desirable, because it is convenient and cheap. And U.S.developed private ODR mechanism for domestic dispute.When we consider future development of international E-commerce, transnational ODR is desirable. United Nations CEFACT(Center for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business) and OECD are making recommendations for international ODR. EU and US follow the same path. Considering the recent movements in transnational setting, Japan should have the same ODR mechanism to participate world-wide settelement of E-commerce dispute.Eizumi edited a series of documents for use in the graduate school class on E-commerce. These documents include some ariticles on internet jurisdiction and governing law written in Japanese, some governmental documents on this topic and several US law review articles. These documents will be revised every year so that graduate students can access to the recent legal thinkings

This Research Project has kept investigating the settlement mechanism of international trade dispute especially in East Asia. Head Investigator together with other Investigators or Research Assistants conducted field studies in South Korea in March 2002,Singapore and Thailand from 7 to 16 September 2004,and Mexico from 24 February to 4 March 2005. We have already published some papers as part of the results of the studies but will make the results appear in more concrete form from now on.Investigators of this Project held workshops about 3-5 times each year from 2002 to 2005 for preparing publication of the tome on international trade law as the result of our investigation. All manuscripts of the tome were finally at hand on 7 May 2005 and it is now in the process of being published by Seibundo. Head Investigator as editeur and every Investigator and Research Assistant as coauthor try to systematize the results of this Project and make the tome authentic. The tome consists of General part and Special part. General part consists of five chapters ; Significance of International Trade Law, Source of International Law, Party of International Trade, International Contract and Object of International Trade. Special part consists of six chapters ; International Sale of Goods, Contracts for International Sale of Goods, Plant Export and Technology Transfer, International Investment, International Trade and Tax and Law of Internet Trade. The abstracts of related international treaties, laws and uniform rules, and some form of a bill of exchange, a bill of lading and a letter of credit are at the back of the tome. We are going on revising the tome to serve as a stepping stone to further development of international trade law education in Japan

At the turnig point of the century, International Trade Law has a task to construct an international legal system, which gives consumers and common citizens secure positions on products, technologies, services and environments in the global markets. On the same time it also has to avoid the risk of Block-Economies.In this present situation, a new type of trade is becoming important. It is a trade on the cyberspace : the so-called E-Commerce. Problems surrounding it became important issues.In this research, each researcher reports from the same point of view as above. Each report is not only based on their own special, but also from the discussion among them, which broadened and deepened their specials more.As this result, Prof. Kidana argues that concept of territoriality principle should be revised upward through reconsidering the territoriality principle concerning the protection against Intellectual Properties. The principle is influenced by the global markets and TRIPs agreement of the WTO agreement. The study from the aspects of international trades of this report makes the influences clear

　文書によって名誉を毀損されたと主張する者（被害者）が、文書を作成・公表した者（加害者）に対して損害賠償等の救済を求めるにあたり、救済を容易に認定する法律を有する国に出かけて訴えを提起する。これはLibel Tourismと呼ばれ、法廷地漁り（forum shopping）の一例である。近年、この問題が着目されたのは、インターネットの発展により、いわゆる名誉毀損文書が、ひとたびインターネットの載ったときには、インターネットにアクセスすることができる環境があれば、世界中で公表されたことになり、名誉毀損の結果が様々な地で発生したと観念されて、原告は自らに有利な結果を期待できる国で訴えを提起することができることになる。　この現象は、イングランドとアメリカ合衆国との間で大きな問題となった。イングランドは名誉毀損の成立を比較的容易に認めるのに対し、アメリカ合衆国は表現の自由を強く保護し、名誉毀損の成立に厳しい要件を課している。その結果、名誉毀損にあたる文書が刊行されたのが合衆国であっても、その文書の一部がインターネットによってイングランドにおいて閲覧できる状態にあったときには、原告（被害者）は名誉毀損の一部がイングランドにおいても行われたと主張して、イングランド法のもとで救済を受けることができることになる。イングランドで提訴するためには、原告はイングランドでの訴訟提起に必要な経済的負担を賄えるだけの資力を有していることが必要になる。　しかし、経済力がある原告は、イングランドにおける提訴をほのめかすことによって、アメリカ合衆国における出版、表現を抑制することが可能になる。　Libel Tourism問題の根底には、文書による名誉毀損の問題の処理に当たって、両国の法律に顕著な相違があることを指摘することができる。すなわち、イングランドにおいては、multiple publication ruleがあり、公表はそれが行われた国ごとに別個に存在すると考えられている。その結果、アメリカ合衆国で出版された書籍によって名誉毀損が行われたという場合であっても、インターネットに搭載されたことによってその一部がイングランドでも閲覧できるときには、イングランドでも公表が行われたとされるのである。アメリカ合衆国では、最初に公表がなされた地が公表の地であり、公表は1回と観念される。このような実体法の相違が解決されない限り、Libel Tourismの抜本的な解決につながらない。　また、両国に見られる国際裁判管轄ルールの相違によっても、両国間で生じる訴訟の解決がむずかしくなっており、この点の統一も検討しなければならない。