## Facts

- A passenger on Malaysia Airlines Flight MH653 died when the aircraft crashed in Malaysia following a hijacking and shootings aboard the flight.
- The flight was a domestic segment within Malaysia.
- The decedent’s surviving family members sued Malaysia Airlines in Japan for damages based on breach of contract and related theories.
- Malaysia Airlines was a foreign corporation headquartered outside Japan but maintained a business office and representative in Tokyo.
- The airline challenged the suit, arguing Japanese courts lacked international judicial jurisdiction because the accident occurred abroad and the defendant was foreign.

## Issues

1. Whether Japanese courts may exercise international judicial jurisdiction over a damages claim against a foreign corporation when the accident occurred abroad but the corporation maintains a business office in Japan.
2. In the absence of explicit statutory or treaty rules governing international jurisdiction, whether courts may determine jurisdiction by reference to fairness and procedural propriety and by analogy to domestic venue provisions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court dismissed the airline’s appeal and affirmed the appellate ruling recognizing Japanese jurisdiction.
- The Court stated a general principle that Japanese jurisdiction ordinarily does not reach a foreign corporation headquartered abroad absent voluntary submission.
- The Court recognized an exception where the defendant or dispute has a legally significant connection to Japan making it reasonable to require the defendant to litigate in Japan.
- Because the airline maintained a business office in Tokyo, the Court held it was reasonable to exercise jurisdiction, analogizing to domestic venue rules permitting suit where a corporation has an office or place of business.

## Legal Principles

- International judicial jurisdiction may be recognized over a foreign defendant when, under general standards of fairness and proper, efficient adjudication, it is reasonable to require the defendant to litigate in the forum.
- Where no direct statute, treaty, or settled international law rule governs international jurisdiction, courts may determine jurisdiction by analogy to domestic venue bases in civil procedure.
- A domestic venue connection located in Japan—such as a corporation’s office or place of business—can supply a sufficient basis for international jurisdiction even if the harmful event occurred outside Japan.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that Japan could exercise international judicial jurisdiction over a foreign airline for an overseas crash because the airline maintained a Tokyo business office, and in the absence of specific international-jurisdiction rules, it was reasonable to determine jurisdiction by analogy to domestic venue provisions guided by fairness and procedural efficiency.


Gotō v. Malaysia Airlines, 35 Minshū (No. 7) 1224 (S. Ct. Japan 1981)