Forum non conveniens is a legal doctrine that is applied in common law judicial systems. It occurs when courts seised of a case decline to exercise jurisdiction in the belief that justice would be better served if the trial occurred in another court. Forum non conveniens began in the United States in the nineteenth century with courts allowing discretionary dismissal when parties and the subject matter were unrelated to the forum. This doctrine has developed into a two step analysis, which requires proof that an alternative forum is available and follows with a balancing of private and public interests to determine whether a trial court should exercise its discretion to stay or dismiss in favor of a foreign forum. In Monegasque de Reassurances S.A.M (Monde Re) v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukraine ("Monde Re v. Naftogaz") and Figueiredo Ferrax e Engenharia de Projeto Ltda. v. Republic of Peru ("Figueiredo Ferraz v. Republic of Peru"), however, the United States Court of Appeals misinterpreted and misapplied the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Court of Appeals allowed the doctrine to be used as a defense to the enforcement of arbitral awards, thus complicating the criteria for the enforcement of future international arbitration awards.
Mohita K. Anand, The Misapplication and Misinterpretation of Forum Non Conveniens, 4 357 (2012).