A small symposium of leading academic and practising maritime lawyers was held in late 2004 to mark the 70th birthday of Professor Robert Force, who in 1984 established, and for the ensuing 20 years was the Director of, the Tulane Maritime Law Centre. This book, edited by Force’s successor, Martin Davies, is the product of that symposium. The quality of the contributions is uniformly high, and across jurisdictions it warrants close study and attention. Whilst some contributions focus on particular jurisdictions, notably Peter Murray’s frank, practical, interesting and informative overview of China as a (rapidly) emerging maritime jurisdiction and Hilton Staniland’s essay on the recognition of foreign maritime liens in South Africa, most essays, as is entirely fitting, engage in heavy comparative analysis drawing on recent decisions from leading maritime jurisdictions. Indeed, it is the wealth of comparative material in the book which is one of its main sources of appeal.

The book’s subject-matter, as reflected in its title—Jurisdiction and Forum Selection in International Maritime Law —is obviously of enormous practical significance. One need only peruse the indices of Lloyd’s Law Reports over the past 20 years to realize how significant jurisdictional disputes and clashes over the venue for, and or mode of, transnational dispute resolution have become. It is no coincidence that many of the leading transnational jurisdictional decisions emerge from maritime settings: see, for example, The Atlantic Star [1974] AC 436; The Abidin Daver [1984] AC 398 (in which Lord Brandon of Oakbrook followed Brandon LJ in The El Amria [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 119 and Brandon J in The Eleftheria [1970] P 94); Spiliada Maritime Corp v. Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460; The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co (1972) 407 US 1; Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute (1991) 499 US 585; The Sky Reefer (1995) 515 US 528; Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v. Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197. As Lord Simon of Glaisdale put it in The Atlantic Star [1974] AC 436, 473, the concept of the maritime lien and the action in rem conspire to render ‘‘every port . . . automatically an admiralty emporium’’, an environment in which forum shopping becomes inevitable.

In the maritime world, ‘‘jurisdiction’’ has at least two meanings. Thus, one is concerned not simply with Professor Briggs’ staple diet of forum non conveniens , forum selection and arbitration agreements and anti-suit injunctions (the latter topic being treated in this book by Nigel Meeson QC) but also with the technicalities associated with jurisdiction in rem which is informed and underpinned by what Paul Myburgh refers to, in opening his essay, as ‘‘the great Atlantic divide in international maritime law’’ between the personification doctrine, on the one hand, and ‘‘procedural theory’’ on the other hand (as to which, see the recent detailed critique of The Indian Grace [1998] AC 878 in Comandate Marine Corp v. Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 192; 157 FCR 45).