ABSTRACT
Analyzing three US cases (two involving choice of law and one addressing recognition of judgments), this chapter seeks to apply some of the principles of cosmopolitanism to consider how courts should understand their institutional role in cases raising multinational concerns. It summarizes the major twentieth-century choice-of-law approaches and suggests a perspective that blends aspects of all three, while also drawing on insights from the voluminous interdisciplinary literature on cosmopolitanism. The chapter argues that in recognition of judgments, as in choice of law, deference to foreign court judgments might sometimes be an independent value. It discusses how the cosmopolitan perspective on choice of law and judgment recognition might have affected the courts' analyses. The vision of choice of law that emerges from the decision is founded solely on jurisdictional power and a race to the courthouse. Again, as with trademark choice-of-law issues, the rise of the Internet makes it likely that international recognition of judgments cases will arise with greater frequency.
