The article is devoted to the study of «forum-seeking» in international civil litigation in the context of sustainable development and globalization. It is found that in international civil litigation there are two types of so-called «forum-seeking»: unilateral choice of forum during the proceedings and mutual choice of forum by contractual agreement. The first type is associated with a situation where the plaintiff independently determines the place of consideration of the case after the dispute arises or even before that, if it is a declaratory decision. Usually this requires the existence of a connection between the dispute or the defendant and the chosen court, which limits the options for choosing jurisdiction. However, in modern conditions, when cross-border activity is becoming increasingly widespread and complex, the opportunities for initiating proceedings in different courts are increasing significantly. This is due both to the fact that parties may be connected to different jurisdictions (for example, in the case of international corporations) and to the fact that the effects of actions may be felt in several countries, and sometimes even in all countries in the case of online activities. The difference in approaches to jurisdictional rules in different countries also contributes to duplication, as legal systems assess different types of connection with their territory as sufficient to establish jurisdiction. The existence of several possible courts for resolving a dispute is further reinforced by the fact that any party can initiate proceedings: this can be either a claimant seeking damages or an alleged offender seeking a declaration of innocence. In the event of a conflict between parties from different jurisdictions, several courts are often available, as jurisdiction usually depends on the location of the defendant, and any of the parties may find themselves in this role. The second type of «choice of the most advantageous forum» involves a joint decision of the parties, usually within the framework of contractual agreements concluded before the dispute arises. This approach to finding the most convenient court is based not on competition of jurisdictional norms or international activity of the participants, but on the principle of autonomy of the will of the parties.
S.K. Dusanovskyy (Sun,) studied this question.