INTRODUCTION

Every legal order must face the problem of parallel proceedings. A plaintiff may bring a coercive action involving the same issue against the same defendant in more than one country. Or a plaintiff against whom a coercive action in one country could be brought, or has already been brought, may initiate proceedings in another country for a declaration that he or she is not liable; that is an action for a negative declaratory judgment. Multiplicity of proceedings can have very undesirable effects. It involves more expense and inconvenience to the parties, and, in the worst case, it leads to conflicting judgments.

There are different ways in which a legal order may be used to react to concurrent actions. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the fact that an action is already pending abroad, certainly is an element to be taken into account in order to decide whether or not the “own”proceedings (the second proceedings) should be stayed. Another way to avoid duplicative litigation is by the use of antisuit-injunctions that restrain a party from instituting proceedings or prosecuting a case in a foreign court. The following remarks will address a third way to avoid the negative results of parallel litigation: the so-called lis pendens doctrine and its application to cases where negative declaratory actions are involved. Arthur von Mehren dealt in depth with the problems raised by parallel proceedings.